It's All Over ... but the crying

The past 36 hours have been a whirlwind. I've watched countless hours of news coverage on several networks. I've read the articles in many major dailies. I've closely followed blogs on the left, the right, and everywhere else. It is going to take the next week or so to really sort through everything we've seen not only on last nights historic election, but in the election as a whole, and the post election decompression. I have so much that I can post about, but I really wanna focus on a few things.

Firstly, I would say in general today's mainstream media love hyperbole. They are better than any sector of our society when it comes to making mountains out of a molehills (although they also manage to turn many Everests into dirt piles.) However, I believe to call this an historic election, is not hyperbole. I don't necessarily believe Pres. Elect Obama is going to institute sweeping changes, and alter how this country is run. I don't necessarily believe he will be without poor decisions and slip-ups. I do not believe this means racism is eradicated in our country. I do believe, however, that is says something about a country with such a racist history, that Americans came together and elected an African-American to the highest office not because or in spite of the color of his skin, but because of the content of his character.

That is all I will say in the realm of rhetoric and poetics ... now for the good stuff. The past 36 hours have produced some classic media moments. I've boiled it down to a top 5:

5. Holograms ... and other gadgets. You have to love cable news. Now I see why we haven't seen a lot of in-depth reporting in the past 22 months. In lieu of paying for quality, well-trained reporters, CNN has been saving up for a machine from the Jetsons. All I could do was laugh.

4. Karl Rove speechless ... unusual I know. As Rove was explaining that McCain's only chances for winning rested on Ohio, Brit Hume informs him that Ohio has gone to Obama. It was priceless to see Rove struggling to figure a way that McCain could still pull out the election, talking about McCain possibly taking Washington, or Oregon ... or California??? or Hawaii????

Further on this point, I watched a lot of FOX last night and I almost fell out of my chair when I heard one of their anchors, it may have been Hume, it may have been Megyn Kelly, said FOX was being ecspecially cautious when calling states to "maintain the integrity of their bi-partisan election results panel." This was laughable considering what we know about 2000.

3. Displays of Corporate Clout ... on a night that garnered almost as many viewers as the Super Bowl, the media giants made sure the viewers knew it. NBC used the ice skating rink in Rockefeller Plaza to construct an electoral map. ABC News plastered itself all over Times Square. I wonder how much advertisements were going for last night???

2. "He is a progressive, who will govern from the center and reach over to Republicans." --- W...T...F??? I'm not even sure I understand what this means but it is exactly what Howard Wolfson (former communications director for Hillary Clinton) said on today's episode of the O'Reilly factor. I pick this quote because it basically demonstrates everything I have heard post-election from the talking heads. This 'socialist' who drives in the "far-left lane" is now expected to "govern from the center" and "reach across the aisle." I don't understand how it can work both ways. I have also learned that this 6 point victory is apparently not a mandate for anything. Interesting, considering Bush's narrow 2 point defeat of Kerry in 2004 was a mandate. I guess the definition of that word has changed in the last four years. Who knew?

1. The number one moment of the election for me was not watching Wolf Blitzer call the election for Obama...but reading on Talking Points Memo (the site I have been monitoring), seconds later that Obama had won the election. I say this because I truly believe that the Internet, and independent media had a greater effect on the coverage and outcome of this election than anything else (the economy, race, Sarah Palin). I believe historians will look back on this as the online election. I'm not the only one. The New York Times, the other outlet I have been monitoring had an interesting piece on this a day before the election.

Weird and Wild

Just when it seemed this election could not get any stranger, unusual and unbelievable - it does. I'm sure by now everyone has heard about this Ashley Todd hoax business. Now I've been thinking about whether I should comment on this. On the one hand, it is just so incredible to ignore - the ridiculous story followed by the revelation that the whole thing was a lie. On the other hand it seemed a bit soap operaish ... after all it wasn't as if the McCain campaign put Ashley Todd up to this, she was a just a crazed volunteer working for the campaign who took things into her own hands. I didn't catch much cable news coverage of this, but the New York Times didn't give it a lot of play, and I thought to myself - sure, this is a crazy story, something Drudge would love (he broke the original story before it was deemed phony) but didn't think it was a reflection on either candidate. TPM by comparison seemed to be paying a lot of attention to the story from the outset. I thought perhaps they were paying too much attention to it, and then they broke this story Friday evening, revealing that McCain communications director Peter Feldman had given reporters "incendiary details" of the case before the facts were known. For example, he told the reporters the "B" that was "carved" into Todd's face stood for Barack. I deem this story not only relevant, but important. It illuminates something that has become more and more clear in recent weeks - the McCain camp has resorted to a campaign of fear-mongering laced with racial undertones. While the McCain campaign may not have put Todd up to this hoax, the fact that they seized the opportunity to play up the fact that a black man attacked a white woman, in the name of Barack Obama, says alot about how low the Arizona Senator has sunk. I wonder if it is even him anymore. From the robo-calls to Gov. Palin's rallies filled with lies and smears, it feels as if this entire campaign has spun out of Sen. McCain's hands. But who knows, maybe these tactics are having an unseen benefit. I wouldn't be shocked. Although the mainstream media has all-but sworn in Barack Obama, I'll wait for the returns to come in on Election Day to deliver my final verdict. Until then, all we can do is sit back and enjoy the show... or should I say ... circus. (9 days and counting)

Where have they been hiding this stuff

This past weekend was Fall Break on the Ithaca College campus, and it afforded me some extra time to watch some mid-day cable news, not something I can usually catch.  Anyhow, I noticed that while there is a sufficient amount of fluff during this time, there is actually some decent reporting buried between noon and 4:00.  For instance, I almost fell out of my chair when I saw Rick Sanchez of CNN interviewing Ralph Nader the other day.  I couldn't find the video of that interview, but apparently Sanchez interviewed Nader back in July as well.  The interview I watched took place right before Wednesday's final debate, and Nader brought up his alternative views on important issues the two main candidates are not so divided on (i.e. single-payer health care, not-supporting the bailout and his plans for the economy).

In the past few posts I have been giving the mainstream media credit for doing a better job in the referee function.  As much as they have improved from past elections in that respect, I would argue they have devolved in their ability to foster a broad debate.  I have heard the phrase "starkly different" to describe John Mccain and Barack Obama more times than I can count, and this cannot be further from the truth.  As this interview shows, Ralph Nader and the two candidates are starkly different, so is Bob Barr whom Sanchez also interviewed.  This year presents a strong and interesting cast of third party candidates, none of which are getting any attention in the mainstream press.  They are lucky to get five minutes on Rick Sanchez's show...by the way, who the hell watches Rick Sanchez?

Back to my original point, which is that there is some good reporting happening in the middle of the day, while prime time is dedicated to the punditocarcy.  I also came across this clip on CNN around lunch time on Thursday.  It features Dr. Sanjay Gupta giving helpful analysis of the feasibility of John McCain's proposed health care plan-$5,000 credit whatchamacallit.  It is a well researched piece that gives the pros and cons of his plan. (Side note:  I do have to question the objectivity of any reports on health care, especially when they are accompanied by commercials for drug companies, who obviously stand to benefit from one candidate's plan more than the other.)  But back to the point at hand...why would it have been so difficult to have these experts on hand immediately after the debate to dissect the issues in this manner.  Instead we're treated to Paul Begala and Ed Rollins' pie charts of who won and Soledad O'Brien's brainless interviews with a panel of undecided voters.  Apparently, thats what prime time audiences want.  I guess the only people who want good reporting are the ones watching CNN at 1:00...so old people, housewives, and me.

Can't a guy just get some old fashioned falsely imposed balance?

I almost feel bad for John McCain.  About a week ago, his campaign began a new strategy centered around an attack on Barack Obama's character.  For the most part these attacks have been carried out in the form of speeches and rallies, where Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin call in to question Obama's experience and his past affiliations (Palin has done much more of the latter, consistently speaking of Obama's affiliation with Bill Ayers, or a she prefers to call him, a domestic terrorist.)  

These rallies, which have taken place in key battleground states, have gotten ugly at times, with the crowds raining down boos at the mention of Obama's name and by some reports yelling racially insensitive remarks (i.e. a crowd member telling a black camera man to "Sit down, boy!" at a recent Palin rally).  The media has picked up on this and these overzealous crowds (Democratic congressman John Lewis has compared them to those of the George Wallace rallies of the 1960s) have gotten as much media attention as the Obama-Ayers connection, maybe more.  

I say I feel bad for John McCain because the man must feel like he was duped.  He was around in 1988 when George H.W. Bush used the 'Willie Horton" incident to smear Michael Dukakis, and the press stood by idly and played the ads and speeches nonstop.  He was obviously paying attention four years ago when the media's love affair with Swiftboat-Mania sunk John Kerry.  When John McCain opted to launch this strategy he probably figured the media would end up devoting endless specials to William Ayers, the Weather underground's terrorist activity, or Obama's past, in general.  While the mainstream media has done a decent amount of this, some of the coverage regarding this situation has actually been quite good.  Look at this piece from the latest Time Magazine.  I think it is an accurate, well-researched piece.  It details the history of the Weather Underground, Ayers specific involvement in the organization and Obama's affiliation with Ayers (which it notes is minimal at best).   On the other hand, the media has devoted a lot of effort to analyzing the near-fanatical crowds at McCain's rallies.  The Arizona Senator has, as a result, had to conduct a complete about face so as not to alienate undecided voters.  This can be seen in the Senator's recent attempts to to defend Obama to his own supporters (somethng that resulted in McCain being booed at his own speeches.)  The video of this can be seen below.



 Josh Marshall offers some really interesting commentary on this at TPM.   All of this could not have come at a worse time for McCain.  He is doing horrifically in the polls and Republicans are panicking.   Sarah Palin is being booed at hockey games and violating the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics act.  The worst part of all this?  The mainstream media have actually noticed and they have all but declared the election over (something that also needs to be watched ... but I'll touch on that another time. )  But you can see why I feel bad for poor ol' John McCain.  The man was just asking the media to do what they have done for the past twenty years or so - fail the American public.  Where do they get off reporting things accurately?  If this keeps up I'll have nothing to critique - I guess there's always FOX news.

Jack be nimble, jack be quick

The second presidential debate just wrapped up a few hours ago, but I'm gonna need a day or two to probably digest it, and take a look at some good ol' fashioned spin-alley punditry before I even touch that.  Instead I'd like to take a look at the McCain campaign's increased attack on Obama's character (something they have admitted they will be doing in the next three weeks.)  More specifically I want to look at the way this is being covered in the media.  The last 72 hours have seen the McCain camp launch an all-out offensive on Obama's character and his past relations.  They have brought William Ayers back into the picture.  Interestingly, Gov. Palin is the one really leading this charge.  Nevertheless, McCain's self-admitted character assassination strategy is getting very different coverage in many different outlets.

Let's begin with Talking Points Memo.  I realize I've been focusing too much on the ineptitude of the mainstream press and failing to recognize a lot of the good work at TPM.  Like much of the progressive blogoshpere, TPM has been up in arms over the McCain smear campaign for the past three days.  This uproar culminated in this video (see below), titled "How Low Can You Go?" being released on TPMtv earlier Tuesday (or at least thats when I first saw it).  The video is a comical montage of clips, some from the McCain camp in the early days of the contest, claiming a clean campaign, mixed with other recent clips of attack ads and smear rallies orchestrated the Republican nominee's campaign.  (Quick side bar: The Obama side hasn't exactly lived up to similar lofty promises either...but Obama is way out of McCain's league in terms of sleaziness in this election...there I said it.)  The point is, this is a hilarious look at the depths to which the Arizona senator has sunk to as polls continue to widen in favor of Obama.  This is the beauty of independent media.  The only place you could see this in the mainstream is on the Daily Show.  

Granted, I don't exactly expect the New York Times to post this sort of video on its web site.  Is it too much for me to ask, however, that they come up with something a little better than this?   Once again the piece, by Adam Nagourney, prescribes to the typical imposed balance we've talked about.  The headline would lead the reader to believe that both sides are gearing up for major smear campaigns.  This is completely false.  At least 80% of the article is dedicated to the McCain camp's strategies to discredit Obama in these final 27 days.  The only mention of a negative tactic being employed by the Obama campaign is that of a 13-minute video released over the internet highlighting John McCain's role in the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s.  This can hardly be seen as a smear, considering McCain's actions as part of the Keating Five is incredibly pertinent to the current economic situation.  In fact, this is exactly the type of thing the media should be examining more closely, it shouldn't be left to an ad by the Obama campaign.  So to answer Josh Marshall's question: while the McCain camp can certainly get pretty low ... it appears the mainstream press can get even lower. 

Is someone up there listening?

Is it me or have the mainstream media actually been doing a marginally better job calling the candidates out on false claims and inaccuracies, lately?  Ever since John McCain released a string a of ridiculous attack ads a few weeks ago, some members the mainstream media have (at least for the time being) abandoned this virtue of false balance and pointed out the untruths in ads coming from both candidates.  I'm not saying it has been perfect, but I feel like the press is playing a bit more of a referee function than they had been playing previously.  Perhaps its the level of ridiculousness some these ads have risen to (i.e. Sex-ed for kindegartners).  Or perhaps the media has learned its lesson from last election's swift boat fiasco.  Maybe the presidents of the major news networks, and the editors of the top dailies have been reading my blog (yeah right).  

My point is I can't always point out the negative.  I have to give credit when I see improvement.  In last week's issue of Time there was a useful grid dissecting a number of ads from both sides and rating them based on their factuality and seriousness.  It also corrects any fallacies stated in the ads.  This, however, is not what I found particularly shocking about this grid.  I expected that in an effort to maintain some sort of balance, Time would have had an equal number of true/false ads from either side ... this was not the case.  The count? In the truthful ads department Obama held the lead 6 to 4.  The lying champion?  That dubious distinction fell to Senator McCain with 6 false ads to Obama's 4.   Perhaps the bells and whistles of a graph were not necessary when a well reported story would have sufficed, but one still has to appreciate the effort.  Not to mention, as a magazine, Time does have to be concerned with graphics/layout more than a newspaper might.

Another example of good whistle-blowing came on the front-page of Friday's New York Times.  This article by Jim Ruttenberg and Julie Bosman does a good job debunking many falsehoods put forth by the Obama campaign in a string of ads launched against Senator McCain over the weekend.  The article breaks the mold of unbiased stenographic reporting when it comes to dubious ads.  It deconstructs myths about McCain put forth in the ads ranging from his supposed opposition to stem-cell research, to a non-existent connection between him and racist radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh (this claim coming from a particularly vicious spanish-language ad.)  It is a good piece of reporting.

If the media is actually reading this blog, I do want to point out some issues before they start patting themselves on the back.  The same Jim Ruttenberg  that did such extensive reporting on Friday produced this piece of garbage only three days earlier.  The headline "Pinpoint Attacks Focus Obama" is the complete opposite of the hard stance Ruttenberg took in Friday's article.  The piece deals with a series of ads (funded by a PAC) linking Obama to Rev. Wright and former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.  Ruttenberg does not make mention of the authenticity of either of these connections until this statement appears in the 13th paragraph:

"... the group's intention was to show Mr. Obama's affiliations - although Mr. Obama and Mr. Kilpatrick were never known to be close."

Are you kidding me??? You don't mention this until the 13th paragraph???  To compound this Ruttenberg buries this under a laundry list of other underhanded tactics used by Republican PAC's to brand Obama as a foreigner, without calling out these tactics as underhanded or unfair.  Jim does a good job in the article showing what kinds of groups these ads are coming from, but does little to nothing in contesting their accuracy.  Hopefully as the election enters its final month we will see more reporting similar to the first two examples and less of the latter, but I'm not holding my breath, unless the powers at be are actually reading this.

Workin' em

Came across this piece on TPM, its a perfect example of a campaign "working the refs."  The article points out that after months of pandering to the New York Times for positive coverage John McCain, the McCain camp has unleashed a swarm of attacks saying the NYT isn't a real news organization.  Now I criticize the Times a good deal, but that is my job, and as hard as I am on the Grey Lady, I still do for the most part think it does a decent job, and I still rather enjoy reading it.  That being said, is it hypocritical for me to criticize NYT's election coverage, and then criticize the McCain camp for doing the same?  Maybe, but then again I'm not running for President of the United States.