The Media--Not Left, Not Right, Just Wrong

Don't know if you watched the Democratic candidates debate on Saturday night, but we did, and I admit I joined in with the derisive laughter at this moment (the key line happens at 36 seconds in or so):



As if the glasses halfway down his nose don't already scream patrician SOB, but what is Charlie Gibson thinking? Sure, he only made $7 million in 2005, so he feels the middle class pinch if anyone does. He probably has to limit the number of designer glasses to buy to perch on that nose to a mere three or four.

Inside HigherEd looked into Gibson's claim and wrote "the average salary for a full professor at Saint Anselm is just over $77,000 while the average for assistant professors is under $50,000. " So even if two full professors are married, they're still 46 grand short of the 200 grand point at which the wealthiest Americans would get taxed in most of the Dem candidates' plans. Indeed, the U.S. Census figures for 2006 put the median U.S. income at $48, 201, which would mean you'd need to be a Mormon supporter of Mitt Romney with 4 incomes in your family to sniff that $200,000 threshold. (Sorry to put the image of the Mittster and sniffing in the same sentence.)

All this economy talk wouldn't matter if the press's view of things wasn't the prevailing view of politicians, too. On January 4, when we heard the jobless rate hit a two-year high of 5%, President Bush tried to calm us by saying (according to CNN) "that while there is some uncertainty about slowing economic growth, the nation's 'financial markets are strong and solid.'" Of course, according to the Economic Policy Institute, less than 50% of American households own stock, and only 35% hold more than $5,000 of it. So while a stock market on the rise helps friends of George W. and Charlie Gibson, the rest of us might not be so fortunate.

Politicians live in the media, and it's not a pretty petri dish most of us get to swim in.

Necessary Roughness

I come not to bury Fred Thompson; I come to analyze the press about him. In particular I’m fascinated by a story in yesterday’s Washington Post as it seems emblematic of the ways all our presidential candidates get written about anymore. The headline should make it clear “Thompson Bid Would Stir Up GOP Race.” For the press isn’t liberal, it isn’t conservative—it’s a business. And that means it needs conflict to make stories, and the better the conflict the better the story might sell. You might say the political press is in the stirring up business.

This article begins: “Fred D. Thompson will offer himself as a down-home antidote to Washington politics in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, running a campaign out of Nashville while promising leadership on a conservative agenda that will appeal to his party’s base, advisers said yesterday.”

Seems innocuous enough, but it sure does take a longtime for that “advisers said” to roll around; maybe that easy-going manner is part of being down-home. Which advisers say this? Why can’t they get named? Doesn’t matter to Post writers Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz, not that I mean to suggest they are different than most political writers—it’s just this current example of how things work is so egregious. What if just as all the country music from Nashville isn’t real country, all the politicians driving around in their red pick-ups in Nashville aren’t quite real? What is it that Thompson’s done for a living since being a senator again?

It’s great Thompson wants to be thought of “as a down-home antidote to Washington politics,” but shouldn’t a real reporter then say whether this image is true? The Post article runs 800+ words, but not once does it mention the word lobbyist. But that’s exactly what Thompson was from 1975 to 1992, helping pass legislation deregulating the savings and loan industry and representing small folk like Westinghouse and GE.

Of course, actually looking at his record isn’t important to journalists. That he can give them exciting moments to write about is. For here’s what the Post says, “Thompson's entry will have an immediate impact on the battle for the GOP nomination, adding a fourth candidate to the field's top tier.” Ah, impact! Glorious battle! Makes a reporter’s laptop lick its lips (well, you know what I mean).

The good news is the press can still keep Thompson on a short leash. For this article also warns, “‘If you're an instant front-runner, you can't afford a subpar performance coming out of the gate,’ said one GOP strategist, who spoke freely about the campaign on the condition of anonymity [blogger’s note: and kindly said exactly what the reporters wanted to say].” The press can make you, and they can break you, faster than a scream rising out of the Iowa night—right Howard?

We do get this attempt at setting up some trouble:

Although Thompson's candidacy could hurt McCain's campaign, McCain's advisers say they do not plan any major adjustments.

"I don't think that it fundamentally changes the strategy of our campaign, which is to put forward John McCain as a candidate ready to lead from Day One," said Terry Nelson, McCain's campaign manager.

Think about the assumption here—if a new person decides to run for president, you need to change the ways and means you’re running for president, since it’s all about the campaign. Things like ideals, beliefs, values, policies you might propose, that’s all fine and dandy just as long as it can help you win the contest. We’re all too cynical for that “wanting to do what’s best for the country” bullcrap.

And that’s exactly why we’re in the mess we’re in.

Auto Tootle

Hey, look! Back in December INOTBB made it to the Columbia Journalism Review Daily, and they don't even have a police blotter!