MSNBC - Text of Kerry's acceptance speech
Well, I watched The Speech and I loved it - this one really was a "slam-dunk". Here are the Cathie awards to Kerry:
Best one-liner: "I'm not making this up. I was born in the West Wing!"
Turning the stupidest Republican 'attack', that he was raised overseas, on its ear: "On one occasion, I rode my bike into Soviet East Berlin. And when I proudly told my dad, he promptly grounded me. But what I learned has stayed with me for a lifetime. I saw how different life was on different sides of the same city. I saw the fear in the eyes of people who were not free. I saw the gratitude of people toward the United States for all that we had done. I felt goose bumps as I got off a military train and heard the Army band strike up "Stars and Stripes Forever."
Subtle and not-so-subtle comparisons to Bush: "I ask you to judge me by my record." "Let's not forget what we did in the 1990s. We balanced the budget. We paid down the debt. We created 23 million new jobs. We lifted millions out of poverty and we lifted the standard of living for the middle class." "Our band of brothers doesn't march together because of who we are as veterans, but because of what we learned as soldiers." "Some issues just aren't all that simple." "I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war . . . You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace." "There is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words." "The future doesn't belong to fear; it belongs to freedom." "As President, I will not evade or equivocate." "That flag doesn't belong to any president. It doesn't belong to any ideology and it doesn't belong to any political party. It belongs to all the American people." "I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation - not the Saudi royal family." "Let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States." "I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side. " "For America, the hope is there. The sun is rising. Our best days are still to come."
Strongest red meat statements: "I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States.
Destined to be the most televised line: "As President, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House."
Actually the most radical and far-reaching policy change -- health care as a right: "Health care is not a privilege for the wealthy, the connected, and the elected - it is a right for all Americans."
And the image which DNC hopes the RNC will attack: Kerry giving CPR to a hamster. It was a pretty silly little story, and the image is, on the surface, just as ridiculous as the biosuit photo But if the Republicans fall into the trap of actually SAYING it is silly . . . well, is there a parent anywhere who hasn't done whatever it takes to try to save their child's pet? It's the universal human experience, really.
I must admit that didn't watch a lot of the press analysis afterwards -- there seemed to be a total obsession on all the networks with reporting about how Kerry had delivered the speech in time for network coverage cutoff, to the point that he did not let the convention applaud the individual speech lines as long as they wanted to. I listened to a pretty incoherent "reply" from some RNC spokesperson, who couldn't seem to identify anything in the speech that the republicans disagreed with, exactly. And I turned off the TV coverage when I heard Chris Matthews cut off Willie Brown's attempt to discuss the speech content, saying he didn't want to discuss the substance, only the process -- oh, give me a break!
None of the pundits seemed to grasp that long pauses for applause and cheering would have screwed up the speech's rhythm and its pace of urgency. The arch of this speech was actually circular -- he returned to the same themes again and again, so that even if someone listened only to five or 10 minutes, they would still get most of the message. Overall, I conclude it was honest, straightforward, and clear on what the democrats are promising in this campaign. Now, I'm off to read what the other bloggers think . . .
Friday, July 30, 2004
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Let them eat prozac
I just love overheard remarks like this one -- Unhappy Workers Should Take Prozac --Bush Campaigner
Undoubtedly Ms. Sheybani will now also be experiencing the opportunity to redirect her employment focus while she pursues an alternative career goal.
Undoubtedly Ms. Sheybani will now also be experiencing the opportunity to redirect her employment focus while she pursues an alternative career goal.
The substance of the dems
Dismissed in Boston - Why won't the Democrats talk about judges? By Dahlia Lithwick
Former (briefly) prime minister Kim Campbell will always be remembered in Canada for her remark that election campaigns are no time to be discussing important issues.
She will be forever reviled for that remark, but I could see what she meant -- the politicizing of important issues, and their consequent trivialization, is a problem during election campaigns, when the clamour of reporters' questions and the need to produce acceptable instant soundbites precludes any politician from ever saying "let me think about that for a bit and I'll get back to you." Kerry, in fact, gets into trouble all the time when he tries to give a substantive and thoughtful answers to press questions - gradually, he has learned not to do this.
I was reminded of that problem when I read this article.
Lithwick writes ". . . Shouldn't this election ultimately be a referendum on the rule of law? . . . What is at stake, in this election, is whether we value the notion of being a nation that's ruled by law as opposed to rulers. This isn't just a voting issue. It's what used to launch revolutions." She is right, of course. And the cheers during the convention whenever a platform speaker refers to civil liberties, arbitrary arrests of Arab Americans, and the more bizarre provisions of the Patriot Act, shows that the democrats know this is a core issue as well.
But its not one that can be glibly soundbited, to become just another election goodie -- its not something that produces a soundbite along the lines of "we promise $4,000 college tuition credit". Kerry and Edwards cannot say, in their next breath "and we promise to appoint judges who will support the constitution rather than searching for ways to undermine it" or "and we promise not to corrupt our justice system by soliciting pandering legal opinions that put our own actions above the law" or "and we promise that our Pentagon will not get away with producing soldiers so lacking in moral fiber and leadership that they routinely torture and kill prisoners of war" or "and we promise that that disgrace to American values called Gitmo will be closed immediately".
The Bush administration has portrayed every one of these actions as part of the War on Terror; stating directly and explicitly the intention to change them would allow the dems to be characterized as "weak on terror".
In reality, these actions have nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with a kind of megalomaniac fascism which has seldom raised its ugly head in American political history before, but which is the basic underpinning of the Bush administration and the Project for a New American Century fanatics who are an integral part of that administration. Every president before Bush has taken seriously their oath to protect the constitution. I don't think even now most Americans would accept the fact that Bush and his people see the constitution as archaic, obsolete, an obstacle to their goals.
Lithwick is wrong, however, when she says that the democrats don't talk about these things. Their promise to make these kind of changes is implicit in every statement they make about bringing America together toward a more perfect union, and it underpins their commitment to build a diverse, inclusive, "united states" of America.
Former (briefly) prime minister Kim Campbell will always be remembered in Canada for her remark that election campaigns are no time to be discussing important issues.
She will be forever reviled for that remark, but I could see what she meant -- the politicizing of important issues, and their consequent trivialization, is a problem during election campaigns, when the clamour of reporters' questions and the need to produce acceptable instant soundbites precludes any politician from ever saying "let me think about that for a bit and I'll get back to you." Kerry, in fact, gets into trouble all the time when he tries to give a substantive and thoughtful answers to press questions - gradually, he has learned not to do this.
I was reminded of that problem when I read this article.
Lithwick writes ". . . Shouldn't this election ultimately be a referendum on the rule of law? . . . What is at stake, in this election, is whether we value the notion of being a nation that's ruled by law as opposed to rulers. This isn't just a voting issue. It's what used to launch revolutions." She is right, of course. And the cheers during the convention whenever a platform speaker refers to civil liberties, arbitrary arrests of Arab Americans, and the more bizarre provisions of the Patriot Act, shows that the democrats know this is a core issue as well.
But its not one that can be glibly soundbited, to become just another election goodie -- its not something that produces a soundbite along the lines of "we promise $4,000 college tuition credit". Kerry and Edwards cannot say, in their next breath "and we promise to appoint judges who will support the constitution rather than searching for ways to undermine it" or "and we promise not to corrupt our justice system by soliciting pandering legal opinions that put our own actions above the law" or "and we promise that our Pentagon will not get away with producing soldiers so lacking in moral fiber and leadership that they routinely torture and kill prisoners of war" or "and we promise that that disgrace to American values called Gitmo will be closed immediately".
The Bush administration has portrayed every one of these actions as part of the War on Terror; stating directly and explicitly the intention to change them would allow the dems to be characterized as "weak on terror".
In reality, these actions have nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with a kind of megalomaniac fascism which has seldom raised its ugly head in American political history before, but which is the basic underpinning of the Bush administration and the Project for a New American Century fanatics who are an integral part of that administration. Every president before Bush has taken seriously their oath to protect the constitution. I don't think even now most Americans would accept the fact that Bush and his people see the constitution as archaic, obsolete, an obstacle to their goals.
Lithwick is wrong, however, when she says that the democrats don't talk about these things. Their promise to make these kind of changes is implicit in every statement they make about bringing America together toward a more perfect union, and it underpins their commitment to build a diverse, inclusive, "united states" of America.
Democrats, keep it up
Too Nice For Their Own -- and Our -- Good (washingtonpost.com)
Isn't it odd that the media who wouldn't say "boo" to the Bush administration for three years are now berating Kerry and the democrats for not holding a fire-and-brimstone convention? They really are pathetic, aren't they?
The democrats are quite right to hold their fire -- there's lots of time left in this campaign for critiques, but the voters will be sick of it if they have to listen to it for three solid months. The debates are the time to ask the hard questions of Bush, like what the hell were you thinking and why did you screw it up so badly.
Besides, unlike George Soros and Move.On, the dems are NOT just asking people to vote Bush out, they're asking people to vote Kerry in. People need to know they are voting for something positive -- the democrats are using this convention to frame their themes for the next three months, to focus their message for their troops, and I think that's a clever, honest and far-thinking move.
So just continue to ignore what the media says it wants you to do, boys - you're doing just fine as it is.
And so what if you are not dancing to the media's tune -- they blew it big time themselves, so why should you listen anymore to their advice?
Isn't it odd that the media who wouldn't say "boo" to the Bush administration for three years are now berating Kerry and the democrats for not holding a fire-and-brimstone convention? They really are pathetic, aren't they?
The democrats are quite right to hold their fire -- there's lots of time left in this campaign for critiques, but the voters will be sick of it if they have to listen to it for three solid months. The debates are the time to ask the hard questions of Bush, like what the hell were you thinking and why did you screw it up so badly.
Besides, unlike George Soros and Move.On, the dems are NOT just asking people to vote Bush out, they're asking people to vote Kerry in. People need to know they are voting for something positive -- the democrats are using this convention to frame their themes for the next three months, to focus their message for their troops, and I think that's a clever, honest and far-thinking move.
So just continue to ignore what the media says it wants you to do, boys - you're doing just fine as it is.
And so what if you are not dancing to the media's tune -- they blew it big time themselves, so why should you listen anymore to their advice?
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Blogger reactions
Atrios' item on Mainstream Bloggers makes some very good points about the media reaction to blogs and bloggers. As the media bloggers like Hardblogger are likely discovering, its harder than it looks.
This reminded me of some rumour I read of or heard of recently, something about how the RNC was going to start a bunch of left-wing blogs, and then just before the election they were going to start trashing Kerry, all with the idea that this would bring the pro-Kerry blogging universe crashing down.
Of course, anyone who actually reads bloggers knows how stupid this idea is. They just don't get it.
The thing about the great left-wing bloggers, and the right-wing bloggers too, is this -- its personal.
It takes an interesting, informed, somewhat unique personality to write a widely-read blog. It cannot be faked or spun or manipulated. The blogs I usually read -- Josh Marshall, Atrios, Kevin Drum, Bill Sher, Billmon, Buzzflash, Penguin, POGGE, Mike, and the others listed on the left -- they let it all hang out.
When my daughter was studying acting, I found out that one of acting's most important and difficult requirements was the demand that people who intend to perform first have to be able to reveal their own vulnerabilities to an audience -- their own stories, their hopes, fears, likes, dislikes, etc. etc. Now, I had always thought that actors concealed their own personalities in their roles, but actually great actors must know and accept their own personalities before they can adopt another personality. They must be able to expose themselves, psychologically speaking, to the audience - if they cannot do this, then their acting comes across as fake, shallow.
And I think its the same with great bloggers -- they do try to keep their blogs up-to-date and interesting, yes, but through their choice of items and their comments, they also reveal their own personalities and their unique "takes" on the world, and it is this revelation that makes their blogs interesting to read, that creates loyal readers. They could no more be right-wing moles than Kerry himself could be a secret Klu Klux Klansman.
And as I have found out myself doing this blog, its a challenge to remain true to yourself day after day in print, to make sure I have said what I meant to say, to continue to talk about things that I think are important, or even trivial things that matter to me.
This reminded me of some rumour I read of or heard of recently, something about how the RNC was going to start a bunch of left-wing blogs, and then just before the election they were going to start trashing Kerry, all with the idea that this would bring the pro-Kerry blogging universe crashing down.
Of course, anyone who actually reads bloggers knows how stupid this idea is. They just don't get it.
The thing about the great left-wing bloggers, and the right-wing bloggers too, is this -- its personal.
It takes an interesting, informed, somewhat unique personality to write a widely-read blog. It cannot be faked or spun or manipulated. The blogs I usually read -- Josh Marshall, Atrios, Kevin Drum, Bill Sher, Billmon, Buzzflash, Penguin, POGGE, Mike, and the others listed on the left -- they let it all hang out.
When my daughter was studying acting, I found out that one of acting's most important and difficult requirements was the demand that people who intend to perform first have to be able to reveal their own vulnerabilities to an audience -- their own stories, their hopes, fears, likes, dislikes, etc. etc. Now, I had always thought that actors concealed their own personalities in their roles, but actually great actors must know and accept their own personalities before they can adopt another personality. They must be able to expose themselves, psychologically speaking, to the audience - if they cannot do this, then their acting comes across as fake, shallow.
And I think its the same with great bloggers -- they do try to keep their blogs up-to-date and interesting, yes, but through their choice of items and their comments, they also reveal their own personalities and their unique "takes" on the world, and it is this revelation that makes their blogs interesting to read, that creates loyal readers. They could no more be right-wing moles than Kerry himself could be a secret Klu Klux Klansman.
And as I have found out myself doing this blog, its a challenge to remain true to yourself day after day in print, to make sure I have said what I meant to say, to continue to talk about things that I think are important, or even trivial things that matter to me.
It's not just Iraq anymore
MSNBC Haqrdblogger "Iraq becomes a four letter word" (Pat Buchanan)-
Let me get this straight -- the democrats are mad at Bush because of the Iraq war.
So they're supposed to be spending their time at this convention talking about Iraq, because that's the only thing about the Bush administration that the public is mad about?
So because the democrats are spending their time talking about unifying America, supporting regulations to protect the environment, taxing the rich to reduce the deficit, creating more jobs, supporting US businesses, appointing moderates to the courts, protecting civil liberties, and . . .oh yes, supporting stem cell research -- well, this is a fraud because they were supposed to spend the whole convention being mad about Iraq?
Sorry, Pat, but the democrats have moved way beyond being mad about Iraq -- they all know its a total mess over there and that America agrees its a mess. And they hope their guy can fix it. But they're not going to run their whole election on Iraq, because there's lots more that's wrong with the Bush administration than Iraq alone.
Buchanan's attitude, though, is so typically republican, isn't it -- single issue, narrow focus, black and white, pander to what the public wants rather than trying to re-frame the debate. It's all so familiar.
Let me get this straight -- the democrats are mad at Bush because of the Iraq war.
So they're supposed to be spending their time at this convention talking about Iraq, because that's the only thing about the Bush administration that the public is mad about?
So because the democrats are spending their time talking about unifying America, supporting regulations to protect the environment, taxing the rich to reduce the deficit, creating more jobs, supporting US businesses, appointing moderates to the courts, protecting civil liberties, and . . .oh yes, supporting stem cell research -- well, this is a fraud because they were supposed to spend the whole convention being mad about Iraq?
Sorry, Pat, but the democrats have moved way beyond being mad about Iraq -- they all know its a total mess over there and that America agrees its a mess. And they hope their guy can fix it. But they're not going to run their whole election on Iraq, because there's lots more that's wrong with the Bush administration than Iraq alone.
Buchanan's attitude, though, is so typically republican, isn't it -- single issue, narrow focus, black and white, pander to what the public wants rather than trying to re-frame the debate. It's all so familiar.
Well, at least he's getting some help
Here's a strange one -- Capitol Hill Blue: Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior . It follows up on a recently published book, Bush on the Couch, where a psychiatrist did an analysis of Bush's public behaviour. Author Dr. Justin Frank did a Washington Post live chat last month.
Now, I have also done a couple of posts recently about Bush's apparently deteriorating mental state. And its not exactly news that being president is one of the world's most stressful jobs. So I guess if he actually is in as bad a mental situation as this article says, but if he is actually getting some help with this, then its all to the good, I think. Just don't let him make any big decisions until the drugs start working -- it takes about six weeks.
Now, I have also done a couple of posts recently about Bush's apparently deteriorating mental state. And its not exactly news that being president is one of the world's most stressful jobs. So I guess if he actually is in as bad a mental situation as this article says, but if he is actually getting some help with this, then its all to the good, I think. Just don't let him make any big decisions until the drugs start working -- it takes about six weeks.
Teresa
Buzz Democratic Convention Blog Buzzflash's take on Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech -- "Teresa became a star by beating the expectation's game too. Conventional wisdom had it that she would speak fast, digress and say something outrageous. But she was insightful, warm, sincere, and on message. Like Obama, she came off as the embodiment of the American dream, someone who values liberty and freedom even more, because she wasn't born into it."
Watching MSNBC and CNN discuss this speech I had to laugh -- on both panels, there was the token woman journalist, along with the right-wing male talk show host (Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough). In both cases, the right-wing male said Teresa's speech wouldn't be supported by women - "wouldn't play in Peoria" as Joe Scarborough said it.
And in both cases, the women on the panel sputtered to life -- they were angry, and even personally insulted, at how these men were brushing off Teresa's remarks. And then the other men on the panels chimed in to support the women.
These women were also impressed by Teresa's high style and class -- Andrea Mitchell, on MSNBC, even made the Jackie O comparison. And when you think about it, have you ever heard a woman say about another woman "I just admire her so much, she dresses so poorly and her clothes are so cheap" -- not one bit. Though women have this reputation for bitchiness and catty remarks, we're the ones who buy the fashion magazines -- we all admire stylish, well-put-together women; Teresa looks and dresses the way all we would, if we had the money.
Though men may be envious of her money and power, she got it the old fashioned way - she married it - and women don't resent her for that. Rather, we're saying "you go, girl!".
Watching MSNBC and CNN discuss this speech I had to laugh -- on both panels, there was the token woman journalist, along with the right-wing male talk show host (Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough). In both cases, the right-wing male said Teresa's speech wouldn't be supported by women - "wouldn't play in Peoria" as Joe Scarborough said it.
And in both cases, the women on the panel sputtered to life -- they were angry, and even personally insulted, at how these men were brushing off Teresa's remarks. And then the other men on the panels chimed in to support the women.
These women were also impressed by Teresa's high style and class -- Andrea Mitchell, on MSNBC, even made the Jackie O comparison. And when you think about it, have you ever heard a woman say about another woman "I just admire her so much, she dresses so poorly and her clothes are so cheap" -- not one bit. Though women have this reputation for bitchiness and catty remarks, we're the ones who buy the fashion magazines -- we all admire stylish, well-put-together women; Teresa looks and dresses the way all we would, if we had the money.
Though men may be envious of her money and power, she got it the old fashioned way - she married it - and women don't resent her for that. Rather, we're saying "you go, girl!".
Another RNC talking point "Kerry the unpopular"
The Democratic Convention: Feed, but Do Not Annoy, the Swing Voters
Where is all this "buzz" coming from about how democrats themselves don't think much of John Kerry - don't like him, too cold, lacks charm, etc. etc?
I hear Jeff Greenfield at the convention talking about this on CNN all the time, usually backdropped by a sea of Kerry/Edwards posters, and just following a speech where the mention of Kerry's name evoked roars of approval. But the media line is that Kerry is hard to like, and the non-thinking media won't be deflected from their mantra regardless of the facts.
I smell another RNC talking point here, positioning Bush as "the guy everyone likes" (NOT) against Kerry "the guy even the democrats don't like" (also NOT).
Where is all this "buzz" coming from about how democrats themselves don't think much of John Kerry - don't like him, too cold, lacks charm, etc. etc?
I hear Jeff Greenfield at the convention talking about this on CNN all the time, usually backdropped by a sea of Kerry/Edwards posters, and just following a speech where the mention of Kerry's name evoked roars of approval. But the media line is that Kerry is hard to like, and the non-thinking media won't be deflected from their mantra regardless of the facts.
I smell another RNC talking point here, positioning Bush as "the guy everyone likes" (NOT) against Kerry "the guy even the democrats don't like" (also NOT).
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Bloggers start getting the good stuff
One of the potential benefits of bloggers at the convention is to cover the stuff that the mainstream media miss. Here, for example - Semi-Live Blogging: Take Back America Conference- Liberal Oasis blogs about two related meetings at the convention, both very interesting events. Buzzflash also covers the Take Back America conference.
And yesterday, some blogs (which I cannot now find) also covered the first veterans caucus meeting ever held at a democratic convention.
Now, if it hadn't been for the blogs, I would never have heard about any of these events.
So right on, guys, you're getting the good stuff.
And on Political Animal, Amy Sullivan has a good post about the religious code in Clinton's speech. Worth reading.
And yesterday, some blogs (which I cannot now find) also covered the first veterans caucus meeting ever held at a democratic convention.
Now, if it hadn't been for the blogs, I would never have heard about any of these events.
So right on, guys, you're getting the good stuff.
And on Political Animal, Amy Sullivan has a good post about the religious code in Clinton's speech. Worth reading.
What's that smell? (2)
Again, a whiff of desperation -- CNN.com - Bush vs. 'Bubble Boy'
So rather than trying to reply to anything that anybody actually SAID at the convention, the RNC tried to make a big deal of Kerry wearing a bio suit, comparing it to Dukakis in the tank.
I don't know how many media outlets actually used the photos, but if this follows the usual pattern, the stunt will backfire on Bush, making the Bush campaign look desperate and cheap. CNN writes "As Camp Kerry noted last night, and we agree,[emphasis mine] NASA required Kerry, along with astronauts-turned-senators Bill Nelson and John Glenn, to wear the weird-looking but precautionary suits as they toured a sterile facility at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Dukakis made the fatal decision to climb into the tank in 1988 specifically to counter perceptions that he was weak on national defense."
And the Kerry campaign also let the RNC know in no uncertain terms that when it comes to dueling photos, they're got lots -- Kerry's aides released photos of "Bush wearing matching kimonos with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, picking his nose at a baseball game and leading a cheer at Yale." And, of course, there's the photo that the networks already have, of Bush in the flight suit.
So I guess we won't be seeing any more RNC photo releases anytime soon.
So rather than trying to reply to anything that anybody actually SAID at the convention, the RNC tried to make a big deal of Kerry wearing a bio suit, comparing it to Dukakis in the tank.
I don't know how many media outlets actually used the photos, but if this follows the usual pattern, the stunt will backfire on Bush, making the Bush campaign look desperate and cheap. CNN writes "As Camp Kerry noted last night, and we agree,[emphasis mine] NASA required Kerry, along with astronauts-turned-senators Bill Nelson and John Glenn, to wear the weird-looking but precautionary suits as they toured a sterile facility at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Dukakis made the fatal decision to climb into the tank in 1988 specifically to counter perceptions that he was weak on national defense."
And the Kerry campaign also let the RNC know in no uncertain terms that when it comes to dueling photos, they're got lots -- Kerry's aides released photos of "Bush wearing matching kimonos with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, picking his nose at a baseball game and leading a cheer at Yale." And, of course, there's the photo that the networks already have, of Bush in the flight suit.
So I guess we won't be seeing any more RNC photo releases anytime soon.
Media Calvins
Good post now on Liberal Oasis Giving Up On The Public about what kind of media coverage could be generated about the substantive points raised in the convention speeches.
Years ago, I read a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where Calvin is supposed to do a school report on bats. He complains to Hobbes "Bats? But I don't know anything about bats. How can they expect me to do a report on something I know nothing about?" And Hobbes mutters "Well, I suppose research is out of the question?"
It strikes me that a number of the high-profile American media types today are Calvins -- they are not particularly knowledgeable about anything, and they feel that having to research anything. like ABM treaties and assault weapons, is really beneath them.
And the reporters have been able to get away with this by what I call "Gonzo Journalism" - stories and chit-chat about personalities and staged events and "he said, she said" pseudo-controversies and "breaking news" like fires and police chases -- like Jon Stewart's candidates' wives stories. The TV reporters fake it with fast skims of newspaper stories. But the newspaper reporters are using uncredited news agency stories as tje basis for their own output. Its positively incestous -- the high- profile reporters skim other reporters' stories for their own research, or get an intern to look up a few clippings.
The only place you now see American journalists doing actual research is for feature magazine stories -- places like Newsweek and Time and Atlantic, and Harpers, and the New York Review of Books, and The New Yorker - and for 60 Minutes. In an average week, the total output is maybe five or six real "stories".
At least in Canada, we have CBC and CTV programs like The Fifth Estate and Passionate Eye and a few other news programs where actual research is the basis of the stories they do. And the Globe does a consistently good job on its feature stories.
Isn't it funny -- when Turner first started CNN, it was supposed to be a financial disaster, but instead its success has spawned innumerable other all-news stations and TalkRadio and CSPAN and all that -- so we have more American news on today than ever before and yet so much of it is just Gonzo.
Years ago, I read a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where Calvin is supposed to do a school report on bats. He complains to Hobbes "Bats? But I don't know anything about bats. How can they expect me to do a report on something I know nothing about?" And Hobbes mutters "Well, I suppose research is out of the question?"
It strikes me that a number of the high-profile American media types today are Calvins -- they are not particularly knowledgeable about anything, and they feel that having to research anything. like ABM treaties and assault weapons, is really beneath them.
And the reporters have been able to get away with this by what I call "Gonzo Journalism" - stories and chit-chat about personalities and staged events and "he said, she said" pseudo-controversies and "breaking news" like fires and police chases -- like Jon Stewart's candidates' wives stories. The TV reporters fake it with fast skims of newspaper stories. But the newspaper reporters are using uncredited news agency stories as tje basis for their own output. Its positively incestous -- the high- profile reporters skim other reporters' stories for their own research, or get an intern to look up a few clippings.
The only place you now see American journalists doing actual research is for feature magazine stories -- places like Newsweek and Time and Atlantic, and Harpers, and the New York Review of Books, and The New Yorker - and for 60 Minutes. In an average week, the total output is maybe five or six real "stories".
At least in Canada, we have CBC and CTV programs like The Fifth Estate and Passionate Eye and a few other news programs where actual research is the basis of the stories they do. And the Globe does a consistently good job on its feature stories.
Isn't it funny -- when Turner first started CNN, it was supposed to be a financial disaster, but instead its success has spawned innumerable other all-news stations and TalkRadio and CSPAN and all that -- so we have more American news on today than ever before and yet so much of it is just Gonzo.
Convention hoopla
Billmon's post - Star Spangled - expresses many of my feelings about the Convention coverage I watched tonight, though I was moved by the 9/11 tribute and the mother's speech more than he was -- I thought it hit the right note.
Clinton was terrific -- no doubt he could be elected again tomorrow (and, yes, no doubt Reagan could have been elected again too).
Anyway, MSNBC showed the impact his speech had -- even Joe Scarborough, Clinton hater from way back, had to admit what a powerful speech it was. Clinton was very straightforward, too, saying that he and Bush and Cheney avoided Vietnam, but Kerry went -- very effective repetition of the line "Kerry said, Send me". Also I was impressed by Clinton saying that the tax cuts benefited him (and, the unspoken implication, Bush and Cheney too) but that his benefit was being taken out of the pockets of the people at the convention. He demonstrated that the personal is political.
And finally, the media was spouting some DNC talking points -- after months and months of pounding the point home, it seemed that the media finally is saying that having combat experience and showing bravery in combat does make a difference in the quality of presidential leadership -- I think the speech (which I missed) and an interview with the reverend David Alston who served with Kerry also had a great impact here. He said he would go to war again if Kerry sent him. If only the media continues with this message . . .
And finally, I watched Brokaw and Russert interviewing Jon Stewart -- boy, was that pathetic. Stewart started by saying that, regardless of taxes and war and the economy and health care, the focus of media coverage should really be on the candidates' wives. And Brokaw JUST DID NOT GET IT -- sat there, nodded, looked serious and all that. Stewart tried twice, and finally gave up and moved to another topic, saying something about how long a day it must have been. To his credit, Russert was laughing - obviously, he did get it.
And about the Blogger coverage:
So far, at least, many of the Convention "bloggers" aren't as good as Billmon, who is watching on TV like me. Now, I haven't checked them all, but Kos has nothing, and TalkLeft provides a travelog with no analysis and Liberal Oasis couldn't get a wireless feed. The exceptions are pandagon.net, which has some insightful comments about being on the convention floor during the 9/11 tribute, and about Hillary's speech, and the Buzzflash convention blog -- these type of "informed personal opinion" posts show what bloggers can do that journalists cannot.
Clinton was terrific -- no doubt he could be elected again tomorrow (and, yes, no doubt Reagan could have been elected again too).
Anyway, MSNBC showed the impact his speech had -- even Joe Scarborough, Clinton hater from way back, had to admit what a powerful speech it was. Clinton was very straightforward, too, saying that he and Bush and Cheney avoided Vietnam, but Kerry went -- very effective repetition of the line "Kerry said, Send me". Also I was impressed by Clinton saying that the tax cuts benefited him (and, the unspoken implication, Bush and Cheney too) but that his benefit was being taken out of the pockets of the people at the convention. He demonstrated that the personal is political.
And finally, the media was spouting some DNC talking points -- after months and months of pounding the point home, it seemed that the media finally is saying that having combat experience and showing bravery in combat does make a difference in the quality of presidential leadership -- I think the speech (which I missed) and an interview with the reverend David Alston who served with Kerry also had a great impact here. He said he would go to war again if Kerry sent him. If only the media continues with this message . . .
And finally, I watched Brokaw and Russert interviewing Jon Stewart -- boy, was that pathetic. Stewart started by saying that, regardless of taxes and war and the economy and health care, the focus of media coverage should really be on the candidates' wives. And Brokaw JUST DID NOT GET IT -- sat there, nodded, looked serious and all that. Stewart tried twice, and finally gave up and moved to another topic, saying something about how long a day it must have been. To his credit, Russert was laughing - obviously, he did get it.
And about the Blogger coverage:
So far, at least, many of the Convention "bloggers" aren't as good as Billmon, who is watching on TV like me. Now, I haven't checked them all, but Kos has nothing, and TalkLeft provides a travelog with no analysis and Liberal Oasis couldn't get a wireless feed. The exceptions are pandagon.net, which has some insightful comments about being on the convention floor during the 9/11 tribute, and about Hillary's speech, and the Buzzflash convention blog -- these type of "informed personal opinion" posts show what bloggers can do that journalists cannot.
Monday, July 26, 2004
'Shove it where the sun don't shine'
MSNBC - Kerry's wife tells editor to "shove it"
Much is being made about Heinz Kerry's remark to a journalist just after she spoke about increasing civility in politics. Well, as least she didn't tell a repulican politician to 'go fuck yourself'. Rather, she told a reporter to 'shove it' when he kept asking her about what "unamerican activities" she was talking about (in her speech, she had actually referred to "unamerican traits") -- she told him, quite rightly, that she didn't SAY "unamerican activities" and therefore could not answer his question.
The reporter in question was the editor of a local newspaper which has "investigated" Heinz Kerry's charitable foundation and was a rabid Clinton-hater. Well, I'll be interested to see how her coverage now compares to Cheney's Go Fuck Yourself coverage -- that, of course, WAS said to a fellow politician.
Much is being made about Heinz Kerry's remark to a journalist just after she spoke about increasing civility in politics. Well, as least she didn't tell a repulican politician to 'go fuck yourself'. Rather, she told a reporter to 'shove it' when he kept asking her about what "unamerican activities" she was talking about (in her speech, she had actually referred to "unamerican traits") -- she told him, quite rightly, that she didn't SAY "unamerican activities" and therefore could not answer his question.
The reporter in question was the editor of a local newspaper which has "investigated" Heinz Kerry's charitable foundation and was a rabid Clinton-hater. Well, I'll be interested to see how her coverage now compares to Cheney's Go Fuck Yourself coverage -- that, of course, WAS said to a fellow politician.
Coulter shut up?
Coulter's DNC Coverage for 'USA Today' Gets Delayed Start
Well, isn't this interesting? So has Ann Coulter finally run up against an editor who demands some modicum of truth to her bile? The quotes in the story are the typical "no news here, move along, move along" reactions that news organizations usually give to any stories covering their own internal workings, but Coulter has never struck me as someone who accepts editing gladly.
UPDATE - yes, she has been fired. Here is the drivel she called a "column" No wonder they rejected it -- incoherent, and no actual news anywhere, just a bunch of one-liners which don't make any sense. Maybe being around so many Democrats actually threw her off her game.
Well, isn't this interesting? So has Ann Coulter finally run up against an editor who demands some modicum of truth to her bile? The quotes in the story are the typical "no news here, move along, move along" reactions that news organizations usually give to any stories covering their own internal workings, but Coulter has never struck me as someone who accepts editing gladly.
UPDATE - yes, she has been fired. Here is the drivel she called a "column" No wonder they rejected it -- incoherent, and no actual news anywhere, just a bunch of one-liners which don't make any sense. Maybe being around so many Democrats actually threw her off her game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)