Change v. Experience

The time has come to choose sides.

Not between parties, not among candidates within each party’s nominating struggle.  There’s still plenty of time for all of that.

No, the time has come to decide: either embrace the opportunity to enrich the democratic process through the use of new media, or continue to allow the old mainstream media to keep muddling along, inventing narratives and selling us whatever it is they think we want.

On the campaign trail in 2008 we have seen candidates staking their campaigns within the now-familiar poles of “change” or “experience.”  This has led to a few absurdities to be sure, like Fred Thompson calling in the January 5 Republican debate for a “change” back to respecting the Constitution.  Or, Mitt Romney extolling the rather tone-deaf proposition that he is an agent of change, just look at his record in “changing companies” as a management consultant.  Hillary Clinton takes it another direction, citing experience on every major issue, in and out of the White House, and pointing to her most relevant experience perhaps, surviving fifteen years of GOP attacks.  She does have a point there.

But the real choice on this “change” v. “experience” front has to do with the media.  When Chris Matthews was in Philadelphia for the Democratic debate in October, he told a room full of college students that “the media doesn’t decide elections.”  In fact, he yelled it, cutting off an undergraduate who had asked a benign question about the role of media in politics.  He went on to shout at her, “name ONE TIME in history when the media decided an election!  Name One!”

The mind reels.  Nixon’s “5 o’clock shadow.”  George Romney’s “brainwashing” gaffe of 1968.  Michael Dukakis and his infamous tank ride.  Trivial examples compared to the botched 2000 election, when major networks called the election while polls were still open.  Or what about the “Dean Scream” of 2004?  Journalists had seen the animated Dean deliver similar speeches throughout the campaign, but once he punctuated it with a “hooahh!” they decided that he was officially unhinged.  John Kerry got the nomination and the rest is history.

Now we have Hillary Clinton’s “comeback” in New Hampshire.  (Odd to frame a blown double-digit lead as a “comeback.)  We have the instantly famous “misty-eyed” Hillary incident.  We have Hillary “under attack” in the January 5 Democratic debate, an attack that we now learn showed Obama to be unsympathetic when he said Hillary was “likable enough.”  We have post-New Hampshire pundits laughing long and hard on our public airwaves about having to “eat crow” (E.J. Dionne, David Brooks) and pointing pointy fingers at “the pollsters.”  Those pesky pollsters with their bad polling!  If only we had known that those polls might have been influenced by a thousand things, if we only, if only . .  .

We have a mainstream media from ABC to the Weekly Standard feeding us narratives and counter-narratives so fast and thick that it would take a literary scholar to sort out all of the characters and plots.  They do, though, have one thing in common: all of the characters and plots are media creations.   Many of them happen while the cameras are rolling.  Other narratives take shape in the mind of the pundit, get floated out there, and then snowball into a truth.  Try the “Angry McCain” of 2000, for example, or Fred Thompson’s inevitability as GOP savior.   That’s “experience” for you: the MSM knows how to tell stories, sell stories, then retell and resell in ways that keep voters on the edges of their seats.

That’s their job, right?  Cynically, yes, and yes if you think media is just a business.  If you happen to believe, however, that media has a role to report on actual events, fact-check, and not whip the electorate into a frenzy every 15 minutes, then no, emphatically no.

Here’s where “change” comes in.  It’s time for political bloggers, aspiring Youtube “vlog directors” and alternative journalists to put together a unified movement for change.  It’s time to step it up, ask some tough questions of our own, of the MSM, and of the candidates.  It’s time to challenge the telling and selling and get down to the business of analyzing and comparing politicians.  Yes we can talk about emotion and spectacle on the campaign trail, that’s part of it–but let’s also force some substance back into the telling.  And, let’s undermine the selling.

Then maybe we can have the democracy we want again.

MediaCain: The Mac is Back?

Republican voters in New Hampshire will select John McCain as their candidate in the primary today, mostly to reclaim a bit of the nostalgia they felt when selecting him in 2000. From what I was able to perceive from attending two McCain events in the days leading up to the primary, supporters were less than enthusiastic. At a town hall meeting, many independents that perhaps supported him previously, got straight talk on Iraq and the economy…straight talk that did not jive with what they had hoped. Speaking in platitudes, McCain presented a confusing message on domestic issues, but rebounded on global warming and hammered home his reasons for supporting the war in Iraq.

It was interesting to measure applause, or lack thereof during McCain’s stump speech and watch as a packed gymnasium began to empty well before the “town hall” style rally concluded. David Brooks, columnist for the New York Times, Robert Novak, and Judy Woodruff were in attendance. They were joined by a swarm of media that followed McCain on the Straight Talk Express after the event.

The following day in Concord, McCain gave a speech on the steps of the New Hampshire Capitol. McCain supporters were easily outnumbered by the media and curious supporters from the Huckabee, Paul, and Obama camps as well as single issue activists. Mark Shields and a few other big name media personalities were spotted at this event. Oddly, there was no major coverage for Huckabee at a rally he attended directly after finishing up the Republican Debate on Saturday night. Similarly, at an event in Keene, NH, Obama supporters filled a high school cafeteria and auditorium with an estimated attendance over 2,000 people. While back in the studio the media might be working on the next headline that shows him sparring with Hillary Clinton, actual coverage of the event was once again missing.

I am not suggesting that there is a media conspiracy to control the message like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly would have us believe. Rather, I was disappointed to witness a painfully obvious disconnect between political reality and media fantasy. The shear laziness of our media to build up a narrative that attracts viewers is intellectually dishonest and skews the truth.

This blog sets out to pull back the curtain to untangle not only the media hype, but identify the real political consequences of a failed media. Furthermore, this blog will provide the media with their next lede, free of charge, so they can better frame the subtleties of our complex political system.