Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal

Reading from the past on 9/11...

Andrei Cherny suggests that, in addition to reading from revered historic documents on the 9/11 anniversary, politicians find their own words to mark the day and rally the nation. Why can't New York Gov. George Pataki (who will recite Lincoln's Gettysburg Address), or New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey (who will read from the Declaration of Independence), or New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (who will recount Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms) deliver a message for ages--one that will stand with the best of Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt? I think one answer to that question is this: We the people have low expectations of our leaders partially created by a media environment that treats leaders as schemers rather than public servants with honorable motives.

Slouching Towards 9/11...

Slouching Towards 9/11 Frank Rich's sprawling article takes on the 9/11 anniversary, including this:

"But here is one way America has not changed. Our history still repeats itself first as tragedy and then as farce, but most of all as entertainment, with a full line of merchandise and an undertow of nostalgia. Only the time frame has been compressed. In merely a year, "Let's Roll!" has gone from being a hero's brave cry to a Neil Young song to the Florida State football team's official slogan to a T-shirt to No. 1 on next week's Times best-seller list. This is all reassuring. If the terrorists' aim was in part to wreck America's premier export — our culture — we can say with confidence that they have not won."

Poll shows free speech support down...

This AP article reports that support for free speech and other First Amendment rights is down.

UPDATE: Here's a report, funded by the Freedom Forum, on the state of the First Amendment. (via InstaPundit)

Simply outrageous...

I once accused Neil Postman of plagiarism after I showed the movie Network (1976) to my sophomore rhetoric class. I was kidding, but the point was to highlight that much of what Postman criticizes about television in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death (1986) may be found in the movie. One of my students wagged his finger at the screen and said: "All that stuff's come true." Or most of it, anyway.

Two of Postman's points that I've employed to good effect are: Television is worst when it's trying to be good; and, The trash on TV won't hurt you because it's not asking you to think.

CBS has now sunk so low that both of these points are now invalid. I refer to the proposed show The Real Beverly Hillbillies. Rod Dreher writes with moral outrage about it for The National Review. While I am uncomfortable with the parts of his argument that deal with race, I think he makes an effective case for saying to CBS: I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!

Elite versus homespun media...

About an editorial in the Indianapolis Star--"Get the Facts Before Attacking Iraq"--William Powers writes:

"The entire piece had an evenhandedness that's rare in top media circles, where savvy players know to trim their arguments in one ideological direction or the other -- otherwise you lack a certain edge."

Powers argues that discussions of civic importance get a fairer and fuller consideration in the media hinterlands than in Washington D.C. or New York where "every national argument inevitably devolves into a game in which the players try to maximize their own visibility and perceived influence over events." Interesting read. (via MediaMinded)

Paying for punditry in the blogosphere...

I do not have a "tip jar" on this blog. You've seen them elsewhere--buttons to PayPal or Amazon.com that allow you to donate to your favorite bloggers. I commend those of you who donate; it is a civilized gesture in an often uncivilized medium. I set up a tip jar through PayPal many weeks ago. I have not activated it. I will not activate it. I make no value judgment on accepting pay or tips. It’s right for some and not for others.

I like getting paid for my work just as much as any other writer. But accepting pay comes with certain constraints in the print world. I have a blog so that I may write when I choose and how I choose about the subjects that interest me. What constraints might tips bring?

Further, I am no longer a journalist, although I still do some work as a freelance writer and consultant. I am an academic. And while my blog is mostly not academic in tone or scholarly in depth, I still see it as disseminating the insights of my academic interests. Park University pays me for the teaching and research from which these insights come.

I bring up this issue because there is a new pay-to-read service called The Blogging Network. For a small fee per month, you may read the member blogs and post your own blog. Revenue is divided among the participating bloggers based readership. Is this a good idea? I don’t know. It’s not a good idea for me. But you’ll find some very good bloggers moving in this direction--William Quick of The Daily Pundit for example. Check here for an interesting discussion of his reasons.

A look at the rhetoric of war...

The Wall Street Journal believes Bush should get Congressional approval before going to war with Iraq. George Will offers Bush some good rhetorical advice for making the argument. Part of the problem the administration faces is that this situation lacks, as Will suggests, a clear provocation of a kind previously encountered. Iraq presents a new situation. Will shows how to use the circumstances of the present situation to argue for a new kind of provocation.

UPDATE: It seems George Will is a little late with his advice. Cheney's speech to the VFW on Monday shows that he hits all four of Will's arguments for provocation. Cheney will deliver a similar, shorter address today to Korean War veterans in San Antonio, Texas.

UPDATE: William Saletan demonstrates why the Cheney/Will rhetoric is illogical. And, yes, in a strict academic sense, the four points Will makes for provocation are illogical, meaning they they fail the test of logical argument. Question: Who ever went to war--or destabalized a regime with war talk--using logic? Attacking pathos with logos, especially when the pathos is propaganda, can be an effective counter-measure.

Updates to The Rhetorica Network...

I have suspended updates, and removed the link, to the News Log on the Presidential Campaign Rhetoric 2004 site. That part of the site was to become a blog similar to the one I wrote for PCR2000. I just do not have the time to write two blogs. I want to focus my blogging efforts here on Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal. With PCR2004, I will concentrate on speech analysis and leave the day-to-day political news and analysis to other sites, such as The Scrum and Political Wire.

Mourning the 9/11 anniversary...

"A shallow mourning is a hideous thing," says Leon Wieseltier in a powerful and cogent essay in The New Republic about the 9/11 anniversary. I have no comment other than this: It is worth your time to read it.

Is Bush the issue in 2002?...

Howard Kurtz considers how the press looks at the "midterm election." Hmmm...there's a curious term that accentuates, perhaps artificially so, the importance of the executive branch over the legislative branch. Kurtz first considers the simplistic dichotomy created by asking if Bush will be "the issue" in the 2002 election: Bush the commander-in-chief or Bush the leader of a sagging economy? Note how these images follow party lines and party strategy. Then Kurtz says:

"Journalists, of course, love to reduce midterm elections to a simple, sound-bite theme. We love the idea of a presidential referendum, even though we don't have a parliamentary system."

Politics, more often than not, is profoundly local. Yes, one image of Bush or another could play an important role in some Senate and House races. It is far more likely, however, that local issues will decide most of the races. Humans are meaning-making animals; journalists will make meaning from the outcome. Because the president is the focal point of national politics, what meaning journalists make will create a referendum on the president's performance where none exists in fact by institutional structure, i.e. a parliamentary system. This act of creation means that the 2002 election is indeed a referendum if citizens come to think of it that way.

UPDATE: Check out this AP article that says the 2002 election is a referendum on Bush. The writer claims that:

"Bush has been more active than most presidents in the midterm election cycle. He has personally recruited candidates, raised millions of dollars and traveled to dozens of states in an effort to help the GOP take control of the Senate and keep a narrow majority in the House."

Too bad the writer does not quantify this claim using specific comparisions with Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan. Perhaps it's true. But, as stated, this is an assertion of self-evident truth.

Changes in television news since 9/11...

Have the events of 9/11 changed the way TV covers the news? It appears the answer is yes and no, according to this story in the Los Angeles Times. I found this part interesting:

"As for the cable news universe, CNN decided its mission would henceforth be serious news. 'I think Sept. 11 showed us that the world really matters and covering it in a straight and honest way is a good mission to have,' said Walter Isaacson, CNN News Group chairman. 'It's reinvigorated us and allowed us to follow our passion, which is journalism.'"

Huh? I have to wonder about a group chairman who apparently had so little clue about the mission of a news operation. But then his job isn't to lead a news operation in a journalistic mission. Rather, his job is to keep ratings high. This paragraph followed:

"Audiences had other ideas, however. While all cable networks have more viewers than a year ago, audiences have favored Fox News Channel, which pursues an opposite strategy; its schedule is filled with opinion-laced shows that more closely resemble talk radio. It surged into first place among cable news networks several months after the attacks and has stayed there. That prompted MSNBC to follow suit, with its own opinion-driven schedule. The attacks 're-energized cable news and carved out a new audience of people so totally into this story,' said NBC News President Neal Shapiro."

Or, perhaps, re-energized cable entertainment. The simplistic, polemic presentation that most cable opinion shows give to complex situations hardly qualifies as news or useful commentary. Ken Waters, a journalism professor at Pepperdine University quoted in the article, gives TV news a 'C' for its coverage, saying there is "an awareness of a need, and some attempts to improve. But I think they have a ways to go." To that I say: Grade inflation!

Cheney rattles his saber...

Howard Kurtz reviews the press coverage of Dick Cheney's saber rattling.

Leonard Pitts on over-layed stories...

Among the many columns this summer about over-played news, this one by Leonard Pitts is one of the best.

UPDATE: Here is a look at British coverage, by the "media pack," of the recent abduction and murder of two children.

More on colorful characters leaving Washington...

CNN is a little late with this story. What's treated as a lament should be hailed as events moving in the right direction.

weblog numbers overrated

Wired asks if this is truly one nation, under blog? The numbers we hear talked about, such as those in a recent Newsweek article, claim about 500,000. Maybe. Who knows? It would be good to find out. But:

"Industry research powerhouses are likely to stay away from the blog-osphere until it reaches profitability. Gartner, Neilsen//NetRatings, Forrester Research and International Data Corporation don't have a single analyst involved in gathering blogging data. 'The area of weblogs isn't covered by our analysts because there is such a limited amount of data,' said Grace Kim of Neilsen//NetRatings. 'Right now it's not that popular, and there is no data.'"

Wall Street Journal, Coulter, and entertainment...

It's official: Ann Coulter is an entertainer. Don't take my word for it. Believe The Wall Street Journal. Melik Kaylan says:

"We have been programmed to think that such impassioned outrage, and outrageousness, are permissible only on the left, from counter-culture comedians or exponents of identity politics, certainly not from nice blonde Connecticut-born Republican girls. From Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Angela Davis, Reverend Farrakhan, yes. Ann Coulter -- heaven forbid."

Interesting list: two entertainers, one politician, and a preacher. Now Kaylan's point is well taken, and I agree to a certain extent. There are more than few conservatives who deal in entertaining outrage also--all men. So is leaving Coulter out of the club sexist?

What strikes me as interesting about this column is that Kaylan doesn't defend Coulter as a reasonable contributor to civic discourse. That's not Coulter’s schtick. And that's okay, as long as we don’t take her seriously--or any of the other outrageous ranters right or left.

UPDATE: In response to an e-mail I received a few minutes ago...What do I mean by "seriously"? I mean that it seems okay to chuckle along with her (Yeah, you tell 'em, Ann...ha ha ha!). It seems okay to rally 'round her. But it's not okay to assume that Coulter's work is an intelligent comment on the events of the day or to assume that she offers realistic solutions to complex problems. The work of politics and policy is always more complicated than portrayed by such ranters as Coulter. And the political actors, left or right, are nearly always more honorable and well-meaning than portrayed. I suppose I want my political satire delivered by professional entertainers in venues appropriate for that important material. I want my punditry delivered by thinkers in venues appropriate for that important material.

Reporters react emotionaly to human events...

Howard Kurtz is good at letting other voices tell the story. As we near the anniversary of the 9/11 catastrophe, Kurtz brings us the voices of journalists who rushed toward danger that day. What makes journalists put themselves in harm’s way for an article, a photo, or a few minutes of videotape?

What women want from TV...

Could it be that women want beauty tips and politics on TV? Perhaps we might generalize this and say: People want journalism that covers personal needs and the important civic issues of the day--not one without the other. Hmmmmm...interesting.

TV may not show planes hitting towers...

According to this report, TV executives will "exercise constraint when it comes to showing the planes hitting the Twin Towers - and other graphic footage burned into the nation's psyche" on the 9/11 anniversary. I don't believe it. I don't think TV can constrain itself in this regard. But, I may be wrong, and I hope I am wrong. The reason I hope I'm wrong is that if TV can show restraint on this anniversary, then it might be that there's hope yet for that medium. Okay, I've called for a TV boycott on 9/11. I'm not backing off. But, if you do watch and it turns out that TV handles the day with respect, then please send e-mail or leave a comment. (Thanks to William Quick's Daily Pundit)

Sly advertising...

Celebs, and their commercial sponsors, have been sneaking product mentions into interviews, which, if you're selling a product, is a pretty good idea. But, if you're the television interviewer trying to be a journalist, and not just another entertainer masquerading as a journalist, such tactics attack your credibility. CNN is now going to do something about it.

Negative campaign ads in California...

Howard Kurtz provides a rundown of the negative campaign ads flying back and forth between Bill Simon and Gray Davis in the California race for governor. Going negative, or fighting back negatively, is traditional politics. While it would be nice to suppose that candidates should elevate their discourse to some higher level during a campaign, the fact is such a state has never been realized in the American experience. Prior to the Jacksonian era, candidates did not campaign. Party-affiliated newspapers did that. And they got nasty. In fact, today we are polite, even wimpy, by comparison. While people claim to dislike negative campaigning, as Kurtz says, "there's a ton of evidence [academic and otherwise] that [negative ads] move numbers." There is even credible evidence demonstrating that taking the high road against a negative campaigner is a recipe for failure. Yes, people do hate negative campaigning...when it negatively affects their candidate.

Gallup poll about attacking Iraq...

Gallup Poll Analyses: Majority of Americans Favor Attacking Iraq to Oust Saddam Hussein This headline is a little misleading. The majority is only 53 percent and represents a level of assent that pre-dates 9/11. This gets me wondering if Bush, Jr. might try a PR gambit similar to Bush, Sr.

Public relations and the war with Iraq...

PRwatch.org wants everyone to remember the role public relations played in selling the first war with Iraq. Interesting reading from "Toxic Sludge is Good for You."

More on Columbia j-school...

Here's another interesting article from The New York Observer, this one about the situation at the Columbia School of Journalism and journalism education in general. Ron Rosenbaum presents some interesting problems and solutions, so the article is well worth your time. But I have one petty little problem with it: like so much criticism of journalism from journalists, this article is heavy on craft but light on theory. And that's what I see as the problem with journalism and j-school education. (via MediaMinded)

Ann Coulter is one fine entertainer...

Here's a feature story by George Gurley in The New York Observer about his lunch with Ann Coulter. It's an interesting read. As I reported earlier, most of the hits I'm getting from search engines are people looking for information about Ann Coulter. I even suggested that I might start paying more attention to her column. Well...I can't do it. She's just too...what? I've come to the conclusion, based on this interview, other things I've read about her, and the content of her columns, that she is an entertainer playing a role. You cannot be considered a serious commentator or participant in civic discourse making statements such as these:

"One proven method of making something 'rare' is to make it illegal."

...or...

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

Ann Coulter is the political equivalent of the in-your-face sports columnist whose specific job is to be loved and hated. This is essentially an entertainer's role. Hey, there's nothing wrong with entertainment. Ann Coulter is good at it and deserves her fame and riches. There's nothing wrong with it until we start taking it seriously. Shame on us if we do. (via Eric Alterman)

Rhetorical preparations for war...

White House Painting Saddam As Evil This AP article is a good primer on a standard rhetorical maneuver in preparation for war.

NYT on Clinton TV show...

The New York Times thinks a Bill Clinton TV show is "not so much like a good idea or a bad idea as an inevitable idea." In fact, the "idea of a former president wading into the audience with a microphone actually doesn't seem all that shocking." I'm not sure shocked is how I feel. How about: disgusted.

The editorial also briefly wonders if such a show will be a hit considering liberals "have never been very successful at the talk show format, a problem currently being underlined by Phil Donahue's faltering comeback attempt on MSNBC." I've been doing a lot of thinking about this lately. I'll have more to say later. But I think George Lakoff's book, Moral Politics, provides some answers. In short (and over simplified), the cognitive metaphors that form the liberal world view make it difficult for them to take on the role of, as the NYT puts it, the "irreverent outsider." In other words, Phil can't do Rush. But Bill is good at Bill, and that may be enough.

UPDATE: A media column in The Boston Globe treats the Bill Show as inevitable. It includes advice on possible formats.

9/11 anniversary and TV...

Here's an article from the entertainment section of CNN.com about ABC lifting its ban on showing video of the planes striking the World Trade Center. The article says:

TV network executives promise to be judicious in how much they use video images that are already burned into the collective memory. But it's clear those images will return. Nearly a month ahead of the anniversary, CNN began airing an advertisement that shows one of the planes heading directly toward the tower. The scene cuts away before impact, however.

Does anyone doubt that television will handle this "anniversary" poorly? I recently suggested a boycott of television this September 11th. OmbudsGod seconded my suggestion.

CNN pays for al Qaeda videotape...

CNN paid for videotape that shows al Qaeda training and PR activities. There has been a controversy about who got paid and if the money eventually will end up in al Qaeda hands. A standard of journalistic ethics says you don't pay for news. But you do pay for freelance material. Are these tapes "freelance"? The suggestion that they are stretches credulity. But I was impressed with Arron Brown's opening commentary last night on CNN.

Clinton may still be looking for a TV show...

In the business section of The New York Times today comes word that Bill Clinton, or his people (it's not entirely clear), is now negotiating a talk show with CBS. When this came up earlier, I called this publicity stunt a "floater," meaning that Clinton, or his people (it's not entirely clear), was testing the waters. I assume from this latest news that polling or other research leads Clinton, or his people (it's not entirely clear) to believe that at least some segment of the viewing public would be interested in such a show. If I were to advise Clinton, I'd tell him to look to Jimmy Carter as an example of how to be an ex-president.

Colorful Washington characters voted out...

With the losses of Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney in the Georgia primary, Howard Kurtz asks: "Is Washington losing its most colorful personalities?" Other "headline grabbing" personalities will be absent from the House and Senate in 2003, prompting The Hotline to exclaim (qtd. from Kurtz): "Forget the gender/investor/waitressmom/senior gap...Washington, circa 2003, is going to have a personality gap." My question: What does colorful, "headline-grabbing" personality have to do with governing? But then that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about characters who'll be missing from the journalistic narrative--characters always good for a headline because anything outrageous they might say becomes "news." Perhaps the story this morning is that the voters in those Georgia districts showed good sense. But it's difficult to write a snappy headline with such material.

PR firms want to pitch the blogs...

Are bloggers in for a flack attack? Check out Pitching Blogs on the web site of the Public Relations Society of America.

Reform journalism schools...

Here are two letters to the editor of the New York Times about the Michael Janeway op-ed on rethinking journalism school. Check here and here for more background. The two letters present opposing views by journalists from the Columbia program.

Hillary Clinton for president in 2008...

Among the topics covered by Howard Kurtz this morning is the speculation about Hillary Clinton running for president in 2008. Kurtz characterizes why Democrats, Republicans, women, and the press would enjoy her candidacy. He says journalists would be

"ecstatic at covering the campaign of the most polarizing woman in American politics, not to mention the unprecedented story line of a former first lady trying to win her husband's old job."

In this single sentence Kurtz cogently demonstrates that the narrative bias of journalism is structural rather than ideological. Hillary Clinton is "polarizing," which means the press can create easy political dichotomies for and against anything she says or does. And then there's the "story line," which allows the press to ignore policy while it delves into the drama of a political women aspiring to the heights reached by her husband. Just by being who and what she is makes it difficult for the press to cover a Clinton candidacy in a politically useful way.

Turn off your TV on September 11th...

The New York Times runs a business story this morning about television news coverage of the 9/11 anniversary. The assessment of those interviewed is that "the coverage...threatens to mix reverence and solemnity with one-upmanship." I think that's understated. Cooperation among the various networks died shortly after 9/11. Today, they are fighting to secure exclusive interviews with officials, participants, and the family members of victims. This paragraph his telling:

"With the first anniversary of the national trauma little more than three weeks away, news organizations are gearing up. Newspapers and news magazines are planning special sections or series. But it is broadcast journalists, whose medium demands immediacy, who may be feeling most competitive for access to the people they believe can help recapture the collective memory of last year's horror."

Help recapture the collective memory of last year's horror? Do you know anyone who's forgotten it or can forget it?

It is certain nothing new will be revealed. Instead, we'll be assaulted with a rehash of horrific images and stories. To what end? I think a more fitting way to remember the day is spending it with family and friends, sharing our own stories with each other, and avoiding the television.

The medium of television, and the people who create it, are not capable of producing anything that approaches reverence and solemnity. Turn off your TV this September 11th. Refuse to participate.

Charles Incendiary rhetoric at reparations rally...

The concept of kairos in rhetoric denotes timing or the proper words delivered at the proper time in the proper measure to effect one's purpose. How one defines proper and determines kairos is an art, not a science. I suspect that Charles Barron, a member of the New York City Council, displayed poor kairos at the rally for reparations for slavery in Washington D.C. yesterday. He told the crowd: "I want to go up to the closest white person and say, 'You can't understand this, it's a black thing,' and then slap him, just for my mental health." If he's speaking figuratively, I understand him perfectly. But his timing and the rhetorical situation demonstrate that he's speaking literally, so this is dangerous nonsense because it might incite someone to such action. Should we have a reasoned, national dialogue on reparations? Yes, we should. What should come of such a dialogue? Just this: reasonable civic debate leading to political action in the best interests of all Americans. I have no idea what that action will or should be.

More on Columbia School of Journalism...

In his article Rethinking the Lessons of Journalism School, Michael Janeway suggests that news organizations should be doing more to help journalism schools in the same way corporations help business schools. I doubt this will ever happen. Recall that Columbia University's new president, Lee Bollinger, has suspended the search for a new J-school dean in order to reconsider the program, to make it more academic and intellectual. Well, those qualities of critical thinking and dogged research that undergird those adjectives are not what news organizations are looking for in reporters. The kind of journalism that gets to the meat of issues and portrays them in their proper complexity does not make for snappy entertainment. And it costs too much.

Gergen playbook evident at Waco...

Frank Rich adds his voice to criticism of Bush's Waco summit. He might seem a bit late, but I find his reflections cogent and persuasive even though I am put off by his partisan tone. He says:

"What his critics miss is that by this administration's standards of governance, Waco was a triumph. It was expressly designed to be content-free...The goal was never to produce policy but solely to serve up a video bite of Mr. Bush looking engaged by the woes of what his chief of staff, Andrew Card, referred to on CNN as 'so-called real Americans.' If the White House wanted anyone to listen, it would not have staged eight separate panels simultaneously on a Tuesday morning in the dog days of August, assuring that complete coverage would be available only on C-Span."

In other words, Waco was a play right out of David Gergen's well-known formula for managing the news. The climax of the summit--the whole point to it--was Bush's delivery of these lines:

"In order to build long term security, we will enforce the rules and laws on the books. I say as plainly as I can to CEOs: if you break the law, we will hunt you down, we will arrest you, and we'll prosecute you."

The hunt-em-down rhetoric made the headlines as calculated. Only the pundits screeched, and no one is worried about what they think after the headlines and the TV repeat the message. The impression has been made.

What gets lost in Rich's piece is that this kind of news management is standard operating procedure in White House politics. You'll recall that Gergen worked for Reagan and Clinton. The Democrats manufacture and manipulate news in this way, too. And that's why I'm put off by Rich's tone. One would think he believes this type of manipulation is confined to Bush in particular or Republicans in general. No so.

My consternation aside, Rich's piece is worth reflection because he attempts to show how news management interlocks political messages and policy. What we get from the TV is a series of discreet, disconnected, and time-bound events. Rich shows us that messages, and the events created to deliver them, are not discreet; they are part of a plan.

Reporter investigates Harlem Little League...

Stephanie Saul, of Newsday, is a veteran reporter and a Pulitzer Prize winner. Too bad she doesn't understand her readers well enough to know what's important to them. Seems she discovered that some players for the Harlem Little League team bound for the World Series didn't live in Harlem, a violation of the rules. Is this an important news story? That depends. Saul discovered, apparently to her surprise, that some readers consider it very important. She said:

"I don't think it's the type of story most reporters aspire to when they get into the business. But I've gotten a lot of calls from parents who say this is a big deal for their kids and they need to have everyone play by the rules."

So Saul entered the profession to be a certain kind of reporter covering certain kinds of news for her own gratification. What types of stories do reporters aspire to? Apparently reporters aspire to cover stories important enough to win prizes and advance their careers and reputations. Saul just discovered that readers care more about their own circumstances than her career goals.

Bush speaks at Rushmore...

Bush spoke at Mount Rushmore today. I think that a president should prepare a more eloquent speech than the usual pablum when speaking before the majestic images of great predecessors. Venue matters. If it didn't, legions of communications professionals wouldn't be employed to place flags, placards, and warm bodies in photogenic locations for presidential speeches. And what a natural venue Mount Rushmore is! Bush used the word "challenge" 14 times in rambling remarks. It's too bad he didn't rise to the challenge of those former presidents. I wonder if rock can wince. I've added a short analysis of this speech to Presidential Campaign Rhetoric 2004.

Bruce Springsteen and "The Rising"...

Joyce Marcel gives Bruce Springsteen a pat on the back for his new album, "The Rising," in which he brings his redemptive rock and roll to the catastrophe of 9/11. Marcel says:

In the end, Springsteen's images turn out to be our images. His feelings turn out to be our feelings. His grieving helps us grieve. Springsteen took an enormous risk in releasing this music. If he failed, he would have been condemned for presuming to speaking for all of us. But he spoke for himself, and that was enough.

I have not heard the album yet. I do plan to purchase it soon; I am a long-time fan. While I spend my days studying the rhetoric of politics and journalism, and teaching the same to students, it's always nice to be reminded that often the most eloquent and persuasive messages reach us through art.

Spinsanity critiques Media Whores Online...

The trouble with Media Whores Online, according to Spinsanity, is that:

"MWO specializes in stripping away the complexity of our nation's politics, fitting events into a simplistic ideological framework. This worldview portrays a long-running struggle between noble-minded leaders supported by the broad American majority and a cadre of evil partisans acting in bad faith with the support of the media. By selectively choosing favorable topics and spinning those it can't avoid (especially by omitting context and contradictory facts), the editors manage to push an ideological line with little or no admission of conflicting truths."

This wouldn't matter very much except that, as writer Brendan Nyhan says, "increasingly, MWO matters" because mainstream publications such as "The Nation, Salon, Hollywood Reporter and the Los Angeles Times" are now quoting the site. First, let me say I agree with Spinsanity's assessment of MWO. But then if you look to the links on the left you'll find MWO. And if you've been reading this blog for very long, you're well aware of my consternation with entertainment passed off as journalism. You are also well aware that I do not consider web sites such as MWO, Spinsanity, or even Rhetorica, to be journalism (geez...I don't even consider much of what we see on TV news to be journalism). I consider such sites, however, to be part of the great civic conversation that the Internet makes possible. And there is room for all extremes here, including the academic extreme of neutrality that I try, and often fail, to uphold.

I'm still wondering about this medium we call the Internet. I'm not prepared to condemn it just yet as Neil Postman has. Nor am I prepared to praise it unconditionally. I am conflicted about it. And that conflict is evident in that I find MWO an acceptable contribution to the conversation while at the same time I revile the TV cable shows that strip "away the complexity of our nation's politics, fitting events into a simplistic ideological framework." (via InstaPundit)

Bush's fake economic forum...

Was it a fake economic forum in Waco? William Saletan and Jonathan Chait seem to think so and for good reason based on what they saw and heard. Bush's economic forum offered us a good example of a government-manufactured event passed off as news. While I share some of their consternation, I'm not surprised at the outcome. Presidents are simply not allowed to participate in uncontrolled events. They must stay on message, so they must stay sheltered from any situation in which real news might occur. I do, however, think Bush may have over-stepped the controls with his tough talk about CEOs. Unless he backs it up, his hunt-'em-down rhetoric might be the equivalent of his father's read-my-lips gaffe.

GOP ad attacks Gephardt in Iowa...

A GOP ad running in Iowa this week tries to scare elderly, rural voters away from Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO) who is making a campaign swing through the state. The ads says:

"Gephardt is visiting Iowa this week. He's here to get support for his agenda. Like helping block payments for our rural hospitals? Who's he kidding?"

The ad refers to Medicare reimbursement rates that are part of a Republican prescription-drug bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA). Gephardt, however, voted for a Democratic version that had a reimbursement provision similar to the Republican bill. So the GOP ad is disingenuous, to be polite. Seems to me this bit of nastiness is premature.

Bush talks tough to CEOs...

President Bush talked tough yesterday to America's CEOs during his economic summit at Baylor University, saying:

"In order to build long term security, we will enforce the rules and laws on the books. I say as plainly as I can to CEOs: if you break the law, we will hunt you down, we will arrest you, and we'll prosecute you."

As this UPI article points out, that's the kind of rhetoric he's used against al Qaida. It seems that the administration believes it can win back America's confidence in the economy by speaking loudly. But will it carry a big stick? The President now must back up this tough talk with action.

Ann Coulter tops searches to The Rhetorica Network...

A quick look at my logs over the past few weeks shows about 25 percent of the people who hit The Rhetorica Network from a search engine are looking for Ann Coulter. I think I'll begin regularly critiquing her column and that of an equally obnoxious liberal--kind of a side-by-side comparison of how civil, civic discourse should not be conducted.

Ashleigh Banfield on location...

Ashleigh Banfield on location - Across America Journalism or entertainment? Hmmmm...It's because of this kind of nonsense that I'll be boycotting television news on 11 September.

Traitor to their class...

A Traitor To Their Class Richard Blow takes the punditocracy to task for huffing about Gore's populism. Here's a snippet:

A close reading of Gore’s op-ed makes the pundits’ venom hard to understand. Gore calls for a broad prescription drug plan, a patient’s bill of rights, and an eco-friendly environmental policy. He opposes the Bush plan for partial privatization of Social Security, and calls on the administration to release the names of lobbyists who met with Dick Cheney to discuss energy policy and documents regarding Bush’s oil company stock sale.

This is hardly rabble-rousing. In fact, it’s standard Democratic policy. The difference is that Gore frames the debate in a language that makes the pundit class queasy. He talks about issues that rarely get a candid airing in American politics: class, greed, the power of special interests.

You’d think that journalists would appreciate a politician who speaks of what is usually taboo. These commmentators, however, are affluent white-collar professionals. They’re not worried about their 401(k)s being trashed by Bernie Ebbers or Ken Lay. With the exception of Goldberg, they work for powerful (and stable) corporations: Saletan for Microsoft, Morris for News Corporation, Dowd for the New York Times.

Dashchle versus Lott...

Lott accuses Daschle of being irresponsible Here's a non-news item in which the "news" peg is the drama of Lott's accusation. There is little in this story to suggest what policies the two major parties are pursuing and how those policies might affect citizens. But, in a moment of tearing back the veil, the reporter writes:

Mr. Lott's broadside at Mr. Daschle and the Democrats was intended to get Republicans back on offense in the midterm elections where a net gain or loss of one seat could decide which party will control the Senate for the next two years.

Yes, that's the political tactic. By calling such overt attention to it the reporter emphasizes the fact that this situation is completely manufactured by Lott to manipulate public opinion without dealing in the merits of policy (Democrats do the same thing; Lott is reacting to Daschle). Certainly, the 1-seat margin is important to the future power structure of the Senate. But in this article, the margin acts a mere dramatic backdrop, an unexplained circumstance that's assumed to be important. Why is it important which party controls the Senate? Hmmmm...don't mistake that for a stupid question. My emphasis is on citizens. Re-phrase it this way: What difference does it make to (insert constituency) which party controls the Senate? What would happen if the reporter covered the story with this question in mind?

Terry Neal and Talking Points...

Joshua Marshall, author of Talking Points Memo, is upset with The Washington Post for starting an online-only political column of the same name written by Terry Neal. It's difficult to imagine the Post isn't aware of Marshall. Howard Kurtz, the Post's media critic, quotes him often. I think the Post should change the name of this column while it's still new. Until they do, I will not acknowledge Neal's column on this web log.

Of conspiracy and irrationality...

Humans are hard-wired to discover patterns in the experiential world and make connections based on those patterns. An excellent article in The New York Times Magazine this week demonstrates what happens when we make those connections and then let emotion rather than reason guide our critical faculty. Lisa Belkin's article, "The Odds of That," is about how coincidence becomes conspiracy in feverish minds. The article also has much to say about our interaction with events and the media that portray those events. I found this section particularly interesting:

For decades, all academic talk of coincidence has been in the context of the mathematical. New work by scientists like Joshua B. Tenenbaum, an assistant professor in the department of brain and cognitive sciences at M.I.T., is bringing coincidence into the realm of human cognition. Finding connections is not only the way we react to the extraordinary, Tenenbaum postulates, but also the way we make sense of our ordinary world. "Coincidences are a window into how we learn about things," he says. "They show us how minds derive richly textured knowledge from limited situations."

To put it another way, our reaction to coincidence shows how our brains fill in the factual blanks. In an optical illusion, he explains, our brain fills the gaps, and although people take it for granted that seeing is believing, optical illusions prove that's not true. "Illusions also prove that our brain is capable of imposing structure on the world," he says. "One of the things our brain is designed to do is infer the causal structure of the world from limited information."

If not for this ability, he says, a child could not learn to speak. A child sees a conspiracy, he says, in that others around him are obviously communicating and it is up to the child to decode the method. But these same mechanisms can misfire, he warns. They were well suited to a time of cavemen and tigers and can be overloaded in our highly complex world. "It's why we have the urge to work everything into one big grand scheme," he says. "We do like to weave things together.

"But have we evolved into fundamentally rational or fundamentally irrational creatures? That is one of the central questions."

Now there's a provocative question. Here's another: What happens when a fundamentally irrational creature gets news and political information from a medium--TV--that presents everything as episodic drama and entertainment? This article is a must-read. I'll be assigning it to my students this semester.

Cabe versus network news...

See No Cable, Hear No Cable (washingtonpost.com) Media Notes by Howard Kurtz. It seems network news just blinked in its standoff against the 24-hour cable shows. It's disheartening that most Americans get their news from television (read Neil Postman to discover some of the reasons that's bad). I find it fascinating that CBS would issue a press release to print saying print gives too much coverage to the cable wars among FOX, CNN, and MSNBC.

UNC, freshmen, and the Quran...

Save the Bigots - How to decry persecution by practicing it. This opinion by William Saletan is somewhat off topic for my blog, but worth a read. He considers the flap at UNC about "forcing" incoming freshmen to read a book about the Quran. Heaven forbid students should be forced to read anything that challenges their world view. Rather, let's just have them pay their tuition, automatically get As, and move directly into the workforce.

DNC chairman criticizes Bush, GOP for Hispanic voter drive...

It seems that Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe thinks Republican efforts to win Hispanic voters is a joke. He claims Republicans use "superficial efforts" to reach these voters, including photo opportunities and teaching Republican officials to speak Spanish. McAuliffe is dead wrong if he thinks the willingness and ability to speak Spanish is superficial. There is nothing more powerful in a culture than its language. To speak a language is to learn a culture. To address others in their native tongue shows respect, even if the speaker has political motives. With Hispanics now the largest ethnic minority in America (and growing), knowledge of Spanish--and thus Hispanic culture--among politicians may soon become a necessity. Of course, I'm now wondering how conservatives will be able to defend their notions of English only.

Bush's summer vacation...

Bush's Overscheduled August (washingtonpost.com) Media Notes by Howard Kurtz. So there's a flap about Bush taking a 4-week vacation. Kurtz asks:"Hasn't the president earned some time off? Isn't this a classic non-issue?" Apparently not. The problem is that, with much of government on vacation in August, there's not much drama for journalists to cover. Hmmmm...perhaps now would be a good time for journalists to do some policy analysis.

Gore gets boost from populism and war...

Morton Kondracke says that Gore's populism and the war give the former VP a boost for the 2004 presidential campaign. One interesting note: The headline indicates that we are in the "early phase" of that campaign. What it doesn't say is that, considering the 24-hour news cycle and TV's quest for drama, the early phase begins the day after the former election. Presidential campaigns became perpetual by 1980 with serious consequences for how political news is covered, presented, and consumed.

Child Snatchings Are Hot Button Issue for Media...

Child Snatchings Are Hot Button Issue for Media (washingtonpost.com) Media Notes by Howard Kurtz. In today's column he asks: "Are journalists basically vultures who pick at the carcasses of tragedy victims?" I recoiled at this because journalists are not vultures, instead they are often made to seem so by the structure of their profession. Then Kurtz makes what I believe is an error, saying: "The recent outbreak of media hype over child-snatchings seems to know no bounds. All manner of relatives, friends and the surviving victims themselves are rounded up for the talk show circuit, their grief marketed for public consumption. It's almost expected now: something terrible happens to you or your family, you head for the nearest studio and tell the world." Kurtz is not talking about journalists. He's talking about talk show entertainers and equating them with journalists. Katie Couric and her ilk are not journalists. I don't think we'll ever begin to correct the problems of modern American journalism as long as we blur the line between news and entertainment.

TV shows and real politics...

The Case Against Jed Bartlet Here's an interesting opinion that mangages to tip-toe the line between TV and reality without falling into the dark side.

Washington blame game...

Battle of the Bubble-heads (washingtonpost.com) Media Notes by Howard Kurtz. Today's column considers the "permanent political fixture" called "the blame game," in which it's "hard to fix problems, easier to fix political responsibility." I would argue it's hard to fix political responsibility, but then I'd be talking about something as complicated as fixing problems...but never mind. What I find a little irksome about Kurtz's column today is that he doesn't acknowledge journalism's role in creating the kind communications environment that encourages blame as an effective political tactic. Now blame as a tactic is as old as democracy; just ask the ancient Greeks. The difference today is that the news media, by focusing on drama, encourages political finger pointing over reasoned discourse. And it convinces citizens that such finger pointing is news.

The sound of Gore's populist rhetoric...

Here is another thoughtful comment on Gore versus Lieberman from Talking Points Memo responding to Slate's article by William Saletan. Joshua Marshall writes:

"I'm very ambivalent about all of this: whether Gore's message makes for good politics, how I personally think that rhetoric sounds, all of these things. But one thing I am quite clear on is that hyper-educated, upper-middle-class folks -- i.e., almost all journalists -- have never, through the course of American history, been the people for whom Populist rhetoric resonates. That's an incontestable fact. It's one that's important to keep in mind. And I think it's seldom kept in mind."

Right now there is a split in the Democratic Party between those who hear populist messages and those who hear New Democrat messages. And this Gore-versus-Lieberman snit calls attention to that split. But as I think Gore's op-ed in The New York Times (and Lieberman's backing off) demonstrates, Gore may have found an effective way to blend those messages. So why did he lose? I'd like to think we could find an intellectual reason. But I think his losing comes down to a matter of personal style, which is also a form of rhetoric that speaks to people about the substance of a candidate.

Still more on Gore versus Lieberman...

Irreconcilable Differences Here's a thoughful opinion that attempts to answer some of the same questions I asked yesterday about Senator Joe Lieberman's recent "attacks" on Al Gore.

More Gore versus Lieberman...

Democrats Find Party In Middle of Messy Divorce (washingtonpost.com) Media Notes by Howard Kurtz. Today's column visits the Gore-Lieberman war of words, which Kurtz says is "a debate about what the Democratic Party stands for, and how the next nominee should try to unseat Bush in two years." I agree. I'm still wondering, however, why Lieberman is choosing this particular tactic at this particular time.

Saletan on Gore's populist message...

What Gore Doesn't Get - Al Gore's bogus defense of his populist message. By William Saletan Here's a different view on Gore's defense of his "the people versus the powerful" message (see below: What is Lieberman thinking). I disagree with some of this, but Saletan is a cogent thinker and his observations should be taken seriously.

Pew poll on press performance...

News Media's Improved Image Proves Short-Lived This report by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press claims that the "favorable glow from the media's post-9/11 performance has completely disappeared. As the media's focus has shifted away from terrorism, Americans regard news organizations with the same degree of skepticism as they did in the 1990s." Maybe so, but I'm skeptical about making strong, specific claims based on polls.

What is Lieberman thinking?...

Senator Joe Lieberman continues to criticize the message of the Gore-Lieberman 2000 presidential campaign as he continues to pledge that he won't run in 2004 if Gore runs. While not mentioning Lieberman by name, Gore responded yesterday in an op-ed in The New York Times. It's an interesting piece: part harangue at Bush, part defense of his 2000 message, part policy-specific stump speech. So far, the press is covering this as bickering between the former running mates. This situation, however, might be more interesting. There has been credible speculation that Lieberman may break his promise not to run. While continuing his critique, Lieberman backed off a little, saying on FOX News Sunday that Gore was:

"taking a poke at a point of view that a lot of people hold and, I think, pretty effectively making his case...I guess I would have added a word or two and said that we believe in a government that will stand up and fight for the people, for the public interest against powerful, private interests, including business, if they treat the public unfairly."

Hmmmmm...what is Lieberman thinking? This "word or two" Lieberman speaks of is exactly the message of the Gore op-ed. Is he continuing to criticize Gore in order to position himself, or Gore, or the party toward the political center for 2004? Is he backing off because he realizes how silly it is to criticize the message of his own former campaign? Is he planning to break his promise not to run?

Press bias and the Middle East...

Negatives Add Up in Mideast Coverage (washingtonpost.com) Media Notes by Howard Kurtz. In this column, Kurtz quotes the director for the Center for Media and Public Affairs, saying: "The media has an anti-everybody bias...Both sides think the media is biased against them, and they're both right. You almost never hear justification for anything; you only hear condemnation." Anti-everybody? Or could the media be biased in favor of something in this case?

Epidemic of child snatching, murder?...

The 'Crime Wave' Against Girls (washingtonpost.com) Media Notes by Howard Kurtz. One of the problems created by the narrative bias of journalism and the 24-hour news cycle is that the combination often makes the world seem like a far more dangerous place than it really is.

How Daschle responds to Bush scandals...

Tom Daschle, Mosquito - How to suck the president's blood. By William Saletan Quote: "This is how Daschle responds to any whiff of scandal in the Bush administration. He doesn't raise his voice. He doesn't level explicit charges. He just gives the camera that serious, troubled, civic-responsibility look and urges the president to let it all hang out." At some point I think we need to be asking: Who cares how responds? As if that weren't predictable. A response is simply another dramatic moment in a narrative treatment of the news that, usually, does not help citizens make political decisions.

Journalists' tortured logic...

Eric Alterman: Journalism by Fatheads I think this post highlights one important reason journalism schools should become more intellectual and less vocational.

9/11 anniversary and the news media...

A Day that Will Live in TV Infamy (washingtonpost.com) Media Notes by Howard Kurtz. I agree with Kurtz's concerns this morning about over play of the 9/11 anniversary. He asks: "Will the media be covering the news or just manipulating our emotions for ratings share?" Unless there is something new to report, what we see, hear, and read will likely be manipulation.