So It Goes

Good -- And Possibly Prophetic -- TV About TV

ABOUT A month ago, I flipped on the one of the local Washington, D.C., TV news programs, and realized once again why I do this so rarely.

The lead story was about how a large colony of bees had nestled itself into the masonry of a private residence on Capitol Hill. They spent what seemed like an eternity for TV news (maybe five minutes) interviewing the homeowner (who sounded concerned but not hysterical), talking to a professional beekeeper (who said she would be able to neutralize it without much trouble), and showing footage of bees -- and not really that many -- buzzing around the site of the hive.

It was, I repeat, the lead story of a broadcast to a metro area that probably had more consequential things happening that day. But, by some calculation, the program's producers decided a bee infestation deserved more attention than, say, important legislative debates in nearby city councils or state legislatures, the persistent poverty across the D.C. area, new opportunities for local business, and so on. Maybe they’d be interested in a long feature about the bird’s nest on my porch.

I suspect no one (at least in the U.S.) reading this will think I'm making this up. Nor will they be especially surprised. It's what we've become accustomed to, and not just at the local level but among the national TV networks as well. When the content isn't something as innocuous as a bee infestation, it is too often driven by celebrity news, sensational stories of tragedy and vituperative (and frequently uninformed) commentary. Again, you all know what I'm talking about.

While the rest of us wring our hands about this problem or just tune out, Aaron Sorkin has taken to the bully pulpit to rail against the sorry state of America's TV news landscape via his new show on HBO called "Newsroom." If you haven't seen it, give it a try; you've only missed the first episode. Try it not only because Sorkin is on to something socially important but also because the show combines his brilliant drama with some astounding performances.

The show revolves a seasoned and tempestuous cable network news (not CNN) anchor, Will McEvoy (played by Jeff Daniels. It’s probably way too soon to say this, but his portrayal could end up being as colorful and compelling as Gandolfini’s Tony Soprano). His new Executive Producer (Emily Mortimer) is brought in by the president of the news division (Sam Waterston, who once again gives an acting lesson) to put aside the usual silly fare and do some serious journalism.

There are lots of romantic and rather sanctimonious speeches about the importance of news media to the health of a democratic society, so romantic they get you (well, my wife, at least) a little misty eyed about what could and should be. It’s very Frank Capra, which is to say a bit preachy.

Actually, the better word is prophetic, for the prophets have always been those who have held a mirror up to the rest of us to point out the blemishes we’d like to ignore. Prophets can be pretty annoying and their admonishment’s uncomfortable. But they are the antidote to inertia and cynicism. To them (some of them), attention must be paid.

This first episode of “Newsroom” takes you through the news events of April 20, 2010, the day the BP oil well exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, and it reported the story in a way that I seem to recall few news organizations did. That's Sorkin's point. Most of the coverage that day was about an explosion that left a number of workers missing and presumed dead. It took a while before it became and lead news item, as few, if any, news organizations questioned that first day whether the explosion would lead to a major oil spill.

One of Sorkin’s characters – his template for, shall we say, “establishment” executive producer – deliberately played down the environmental story because it wasn’t the way they do things around there. The new upstart EP pushes her team to look for the “real” story, and she eggs on McEvoy to ask the truly penetrating questions. The newsroom and story were transformed, and Sorkin "proves" that good TV journalism is not a relic of the past.

It's only fair to say that there’s something a bit manipulative and misleading about this narrative.

Manipulative because Sorkin creates this “bad” news vs. “good” news dynamic that emotionally obligates you to take the side of the hard-charging anti-establishment EP and her team.

And misleading because, though I’m no expert on this, it may be unfair of Sorkin to condemn our major media for not reporting the environmental disaster story early on (though experts like The Washington Post's Joel Achenbach, who wrote a book on the BP oil spill, would know the chronology much better than I). Many news organizations (or even BP) may not have had access to the facts on the first day of the crisis (a producer on “Newsroom” just happens to have some inside sources that enable them to break the story). So it’s a bit unfair to beat up on them now, as I think Sorkin is.

Misleading also because, I should stress, there are many, many serious and talented journalists, doing real journalism, for TV news. I know many personally and professionally, so I see it up close. They’re doing what they should and really know their stuff, digging out hard-to-find information, challenging sources who try to evade tough questions and sometimes putting their lives on the line in war zones. The problem is there are fewer and fewer places for them as TV newsrooms (and this is true across American media) get smaller, even if the news doesn’t, and as so much of what ultimately appears on the air reflects little of the seriousness these journalists bring to their jobs. Many of them would probably agree, but I’ll leave them to say.

So, okay, there are flaws with “Newsroom.” But the point of the show is still too important to cast aside. It inveighs against the programs that have really sullied and trivialized our national discourse. Like the one that McEvoy presided over in recent years (he apologizes that “we took a dive for our ratings”). And it rejects the argument many news programs have made that they’re just giving the viewers what they want, and that when the networks offer more consequential (read: tedious) news, they lose viewers and money. But then, many of us viewers are saying that if only our TV news programs would report “real” news, we’d watch more. Chicken and egg?

In an interview with New York Times media writer David Carr, Sorkin pretty much concedes that his vision is romantic.

“I think the reason it’s been reviewed as far-fetched is that it’s far-fetched," he wrote in an e-mail. "Every bit as far-fetched as a Democratic administration that gets stuff done," he added, referring to the accomplished — and entirely fictional — Bartlet administration in "The West Wing,” which he also wrote.

Then he added, "I don’t know anything about ratings (and I’ve had the ratings to back that up) but if I were the president of CNN I would put the smartest news people I know in a room and ask, ‘What would a utopian news show look like?’ and then I’d ask ‘What’s stopping us from doing that?’ ”

Sorkin’s fictional news division president makes it all sound so easy. “We just decided to do it” -- to do good journalism, that is -- he says near the end of the first episode. I suspect that at real-life TV news networks, it’s far more complicated than that. But that doesn’t mean we can’t, along with Sorkin, dream of such a scenario.

I hope the rest of the series lives up to the freneticism and intelligence of the first episode of “Newsroom”. If so, watch it, not only because its message is good for you (and the country) but also for the same reason many of us watch the footage of police car chases, celebrity gossip and shouting political partisans on the TV news (not to mention bee infestations): because it’s good TV.

Jeff

Limbaugh Has 'Crossed The Line' Many Times Before? How is it Different Now?

THE OUTRAGE over the last few days surrounding Rush Limbaugh's shameful and nauseating remarks about Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke suggests that he has finally crossed a line. Even leading Republicans and other conservatives are condemning him (sort of -- see below) and some advertisers are finally abandoning the show.

This is, of course, as it should be. A civil society is one in which decent people push the indecent ones beyond the margins and keep them out of the public square where serious and respectful discourse happens. It's about affirming and sustaining a standard of what is right and good. I'm not talking about government censorship. No, I mean reasonable people speaking up to put the actions of the people like Limbaugh in their proper context. Without those voices, everything is acceptable, even the unacceptable. There's far too little of that.

But the big question for me is, how is this latest outrage much different from any other Limbaugh has made over the years?

I was going to starting citing a few examples just to make the case that Limbaugh has been at this game for years, that this is nothing new. But I realized that would be like proving water is wet. Can't we -- people from across the ideological continuum who might not always agree on policy -- stipulate that his brand is outrage, intellectual dishonesty and the sort of nastiness he turned on Sandra Fluke? Isn't that why millions of people (including many who disagree with him but enjoy the nuttiness) tune in to Limbaugh, to be provoked? Is that what he consciously delivers? So stipulated?

Besides, there's such a mountain of examples of Limbaugh's vileness it's hard to know where exactly to begin. This is what he does every day. Okay, just two examples:

• To one apparently African American caller, Limbaugh once said: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." 
• About the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib: "It's sort of like hazing, a fraternity prank. Sort of like that kind of fun."

He's 'gone too far' many times before. So what's special about this particular incident? I mean, why wasn't he drummed out of decent society long ago?

Sure, there have been plenty of liberal voices that have tried to expose and oppose Limbaugh for years. Heck, there's even an organization -- Media Matters for America -- devoted to documenting everything he and the other right-wing radio shouters say.

But, all of the sudden, we're hearing from conservatives and Limbaugh's advertisers. All of the sudden, it's not enough just to dismiss him as "an entertainer" and leave it at that -- knowing full well that his poison and distortion (and that of the Limbaugh copycats, who seem to be everywhere) have been useful in tearing down anyone to the left of Tea Party, which presumably has been good for Republicans.

About those condemnations. Some have been absolutely honorably full-throated denunciations from well-known conservatives/Republicans, such as David Frum, Kathleen Parker, Scott Brown, Carly Fiorina and others.

Beyond the political class, Most Honorable Mention goes to John DeGioia, President of Georgetown, who sent a letter to students and faculty supporting Fluke's congressional testimony. "She was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction," he wrote. "She provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people." And this from the guy whose university policy Fluke was disagreeing with. His letter was truly inspiring and the mark of moral leadership.

In contrast, much has been made in the last day or two of similar denunciations by Republican leaders. But when you look much more closely, they seem kind of restrained to me -- lame, to put it another way.

A spokesperson for House Speaker John Boehner (not even Boehner himself) commented: "The Speaker obviously believes the use of those words [by Limbaugh] was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation." 

That last bit is an attempt to turn it around and blame Democrats and liberal organizations for supposedly using this incident to raise money from their supporters. First of all, these organizations probably don't have to even ask. People are so pissed they're likely expressing their ire by helping the organizations that do battle on women's issues. Second, if someone called Boehner's daughter a slut and a prostitute, do you think he would issue a meek and morally compromised statement like that -- much less through a surrogate?

The current Republican Party candidates for the GOP presidential nomination sounded similarly subdued, though they can technically say they 'went on record' against Limbaugh. 

"That's not the language I would have used," Romney said, adding they he is just out there to talk about jobs. That was it.

Mr. Morality, Rick Santorum, offered a Rush-being-Rush rationalization: "He's being absurd. I mean, you know, an entertainer can be absurd." In other words, don’t take him seriously.

And Ron Paul just punted it back to Rush: "You'd have to ask him about his crudeness."

(Let's see what they say on the Sunday morning shows tomorrow, where this issue is sure to come up, and hope there's a little more courage.)

Timid responses, but I guess pretty forceful considering that these guys have never said much to put the Limbaugh’s of the world in their proper place. Indeed, they’ve been happy to let the shouters fire up their base and tear down the Democrats.

And advertisers have been happy to keep supporting Limbaugh so long as he keeps delivering to them big numbers and good demographics.

I would like to believe that they reacted now because, in their hearts, even they were disgusted by Limbaugh’s attack on Fluke, and maybe that’s the case.

A more cynical explanation is that the politicos know that Limbaugh has said something that even some of the more hardcore base of the Republican Party, and certainly a large number (women and men) who tend toward the center, find enormously offensive. As it is, Republicans have played with fire in recent weeks by appearing to be dictating what women can and can’t do with their bodies – which is way off the message of jobs and debt that has been the core of their campaign for Congress and the White House. This could burn them.

I’ve been waiting for at least the last 20 years for all this ugly, dishonest garbage, spewed by the Limbaughs and tolerated (sometimes embraced) by conservative supporters, to come back and haunt both - because Americans are good and smart. I say that not because I disagree with conservatives on many, but not all, policy issues but because so many have conducted themselves shamefully and so many others have been perfectly happy to let them off the hook as long as it delivered votes for the party (or audiences for advertisers).

But, much to my amazement, time and time again over the years, the support for such crap seems only to have deepened and further distorted our politics. I truly hope this time it’s different, that this story won't just come and go. But, then, I’ve thought that before.

Jeff

"Emblematic" of Evangelical Christians? I Hope Not

AMID THE VOLUMINOUS coverage of yesterday's caucuses, the Washington Post ran a feature photo today of a family from Rock Rapids, Iowa, next to a headline "Witness Politics: Their Faith is in Santorum." It's the sort of 'glimpse of the inner world of voters' that attempts to offer a little authenticity to the volumes of blather that pundits produce to fill so much air time.

Both the husband and wife who were featured told the photographer they would vote for Rick Santorum, and the caption describes them as "emblematic of evangelical conservatives."

The extended caption (I'm going with the text in the printed edition, which is slightly different from the online copy) goes on to say that the husband and wife said :

[T]hey couldn't vote for Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) because she is a woman, for Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) because of his anti-war views, for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, for former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) because of his infidelity and for Texas Gov. Rick Perry because he didn't get past the surface of the issues.

Assuming this couple is truly "emblematic of evangelical conservatives" (and let me point out that the Post owes readers and their subject a bit more to prove this is empirically true -- a snapshot of two people does not a demographic profile make), I'm a bit startled to see that they would make this sort of admission publicly, let alone think it in the first place.

Now, there are a truckload of reasons not to vote for Michele Bachmann. But to say categorically that she is unfit to be President because she is a woman, well, wow. Forgive my precious naivete, but are there still a lot of people in America who think this? And do they really think it's no big deal to say it out loud without any apparent embarrassment ? Haven't we gotten past that one out?

And then what about their view on Romney? Believe me, I'm aware of the theogical (and maybe it's even social and cultural) discomfort many evangelical Christians have when it comes to Mormons. But are we still living in a country where religion is a make-or-break factor in some people's judgment of their fitness for higher officer, or, presumably, anything else? (Well, when it comes to Muslims in particular, as I have discussed frequently in this blog, yeah.) Would I be justified in dismissing a candidate of a certain faith (say, an evangelical Christian), even if that person is clearly qualified and completely in synch with my own political views?

The comment about Paul is slightly more complicated, I think, though it raises questions. It's tempting to conclude that the couple here is "pro-war" because they rule out Paul for his "anti-war" views. But they could mean that, while war is undesireable and should be avoided at all cost, it is sometimes an option we have to choose. (Paul is, apparently, categorically against any sort of military action, or so I understand.) That's not such an unreasonable position, but I personally would not have been comfortable characterizing my vote so simplistically, knowing how much misunderstanding might be lurking in the vagueness. Maybe the journalist owed them a little more clarity than this. Or maybe she got them just right.

As for their objection to Gingrich: no surprise. Same for Perry, though I would argue (as The New Republic has in this excellent essay) that none of the Republican candiates got "past the surface of the issues." (Democrats are not immune from this at times, either, by the way.)

I'm hesitant to make any broad-sweeping generalizations about evangelical Christians based on this isolated example. Indeed, much as I may disagree with many on certain issues, I sincerely believe most evangelical Christians are representative of the whole of society, which is to say they have good and decent intentions. And this could be a case of bad translatiby the newspaper.

But, not that any will listen to me, but if I were an evangelical Christian, I would step up and say that these two are not at all "emblematic" of their community. And, if I were Rick Santorum, I would do the same. Otherwise, we're left with the feeling that they embrace pretty unfortunate views. And Santorum would need to prove to me that as President of the United States, he will represent all the American people.

Jeff

NPR "Liberal Bias", Continued

LAST NIGHT I engaged in what NPR calls a "driveway moment," whereby I literally sat in my parked car in my driveway with my daughter, both of us unwilling to walk away from a riveting piece about an Iraq War veteran's scary struggle with the effects of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder.

This was one in a series of in-depth investigative reports by NPR and Pro-Publica, a non-profit investigative journalism organization, about how the U.S. military has not grappled sufficiently with the aftereffects of TBI (traumatic brain injury) and PTSD among those who have suffered them in action, mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan. The result of these reports has been some very public responses by our miltary and veterans affairs officials that treatment of service members with these maladies needs reform and improvement. This is a case of where journalism is truly making a difference.

Moreover, the stories you hear -- from the service members themselves and the families who through hell to care for them -- are chilling and heartbreaking. In addition to spurring better handling of these wounded warriors, the stories on this NPR series remind us, as Marine Lt. Gen. John Kelly did in this recent Washington Post article, of the continued sacrifice a relative few Americans are making on behalf of the country. "We are in a life-and-death struggle, but not our whole country," said Kelly, whose own son, a Marine, was killed in Afghanistan last November. "One percent of Americans are touched by this war. Then there is a much smaller club of families who have given all." At the very least (and this is not much), the rest of us owe it to them to pay attention, to keep their plight from being out of sight and out of mind.

I could -- maybe should -- go on about that, but I'm still thinking about my post the other day on NPR and the reaction to it. As I expected, not everyone agrees with me that notions that NPR is guilty of "liberal bias" are misplaced. Fair enough, I suppose. As I said, I think it's all about what appears in the eye of the beholder.

Still, when I encounter work like the NPR series on brain injury and PTSD among the military, I can't understand what these other eyes are beholding. Tell me, please, where is the "liberal bias" in this journalism? Is it "liberal" to raise a mirror up to our government about something it might want to improve? And since when is it "liberal" to be standing up for the needs of people in the military service? If anything, hasn't the right claimed that for itself?

And please detail for me how this particular bit of journalism differs from all the rest that NPR generates daily -- indeed, around the clock. Is this an anomoly?

I guess I still don't get it. .

Jeff

NPR Debate Exposes the Gulf Dividing America

THE RECENT CONTROVERSIES over NPR, have really upset me. Though to understand exactly why, I have to get past my reflexive response .

As I have noted here before, public radio has been a constant companion and major source of knowledge for me since I was in high school. This sounds so precious to say, I know, but I have almost "grown up" on public radio and am constantly amazed by the vast and innovative work it produces. (Coincidentally, though important to disclose here, I consulted professionally to NPR for several years in the mid-2000s, but, believe me, my attachment to it had formed long before.)

So, reflexively, I'm easily annoyed by attacks on public radio. What really gets my goat are the charges of NPR's (and public radio's) alleged "liberal bias." I hear this even from self-described liberals from time to time, but most definitely from self-described conservatives.

All I can say to them is, what!? Seriously? Because if you actually listen to it (and now I'm speaking primarily of NPR, but I think the same can be said for most local public radio stations), you will hear facts and information -- with the occasional commentary, some of which consciously gives air time to people from all points on the ideological spectrum, including, believe it or not, conservatives. It makes me wonder if these critics are truly listening to public radio or just responding to a cartoonish stereotype.

At a time when thoughtful, thorough and reliable news gathering operations are actually shrinking, NPR has expanded its reach, dispensing information that would otherwise be difficult to find about many different issues from many different spots around the world. Around major news events, Americans will be hard pressed to find the kind of reporting on the radio dial (or in many other places) they get from NPR. So why wouldn't don't Americans view it as the national treasure that it is, a great investment of public dollars?

(There are also the charges, from some of my good friends and others within the pro-Israel community -- of which consider myself a part -- that NPR specifically has anti-Israel bias. I remain mystified by these charges, but this is something for another time.)

To some ears, public radio's on-air personalities can be a bit ponderous and earnest at times -- some call it "snooty". Maybe that tone grates on the critics' nerves from time to time. Even so, I'll take it any day over the sensationlistic presentation of the news on our cable and broadcast news outlets anyday or the steady flow of crap about celebrities.

I defy anyone to explain to me where the bias is in NPR's straight news (not opinion) programs.Give me real, substantial examples of bias that anyone can agree on -- and not just one or two anomolies (like, say, the remarks of NPR's development director, which, by the way, some are now saying were distorted in the final edit). Give me real proof that the entire operation is shot through with bias (like, say, a certain cable news outlet whose begins with F and ends with x). If you can't or won't, please, don't waste your time trying to convince me otherwise.

All of what I've just discussed, though, remains within the province of perception or, perhaps, under the Latin maxim, de gustibus non est disputandum -- “there is no disputing about tastes.” Yes, that adage is reserved mostly for discussion of aesthetics and art, but I'd argue that political outlook is really another variant of taste -- formed both by experience, context and, I suppose to some extent, physiology (e.g. most of us recoil physically from foul smells and violent images).

My point is that debates like the one we saw the other day on the floor of the House of Representatives, which passed a measure to cut public funding for NPR  -- ridiculous as they may be, are yet another in a growing number of examples of how disparate groups of Americans are perceiving the world in starkly different ways.

No, that's not an original insight. Plenty of other commentators and much of our public opinion research has made this point for a long time. I talked about it last year around issues such as acceptance of the science on climate change and the theory of evolution.

So, what's really troubling to me about the NPR debate and the rest of public radio is not that other Americans don't share my taste. Again, de gustibus non est disputandum, baby. Rather, it seems to have gone well beyond that. We're not even using the same vocabulary to talk about it or the same yardsticks to measure what we're arguing about.

My bias -- yes, maybe I'm living in my own unreality -- is that this growing gulf of perception is being driven by people with another agenda: to win elections or higher viewer ratings. Most of that -- again, my perspective -- appears to be coming from the political right, which has been masterful over the last generation in its ability to frame issues in ways that distort what the public debates should really be about.

For example, they argued during the '80s and '90s especially that if you're not for tough anti-crime measures, such as the death penalty or mandatory minimum sentences, you're a lover of criminals; they now have framed a false choice  between efforts to limit sources of "so-called" green-house gases into the atmosphere and economic progress -- as if we can't have both; and they have so effectively branded "taxes" and "big government" as evil twins, that any politician who even thinks of raising a tax -- indeed, of not lowering one -- should be considered suicidal and public employees are likely feeling like enemies of the people. Then there's the argument that easy access to guns is good for us and that immigrants -- not just the illegal ones, but also the ones in our midst who have made it necessary for proud Americans to have to dial 1 for English and put up with bilingual operating instructions -- are somehow bad for America. And don't get me started on the lie that Obama is a Muslim, which one of our our highest-ranking public officials, the Speaker of the House, wouldn't even dispute recently saying, "It's not my job to tell the American people what to think."  How ironic is this?

The smears about NPR bias are yet another part of this series of framed talking points. And they exaggerate the unpopularity of the radio network. Indeed, as the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism noted in its just-released "State of the News Media: 2011",  NPR has a huge and growing audience: "National Public Radio continues to be a growing source of news for many Americans, its audience expanding each year as news disappears from commercial radio outside of the country’s largest markets.  Overall NPR’s audience grew 3% in 2010, to 27.2 million weekly listeners."

What usually happens after I post a commentary like this is that those on the "liberal" side of things say, "Yo, right on," and those on the other side tell me how misguided I am. We all play our roles, as if the script is set and inviolable. Not that, if we are true to our own selves, we should do any differently. But I'm puzzled as to how we're ever going to be able to bridge that gap.

Jeff

The Mess Juan Williams Hath Wrought

The messy flap over Juan Williams' firing from NPR is disappointing all around.For its part, NPR may have overreacted a bit. Yes, Williams' remarks about his feelings about Muslims make me uneasy (as my wife pointed out, what if you replaced from his remarks the word "Muslim" with "Jew" or "African American" or whatever?). But what he said seems a lot more ambiguous to me than others I've criticized for anti-Muslim sentiment (see this, this and this). He certainly could have been understood the wrong way, and obviously was by many. But having followed and admired Williams for a long time, I find it hard to believe he has a deep antipahy for Muslims. Given the murkiness of this one, at the most NPR should have handed down a suspension, not an all-out dismissal, don't you think? Reasonable and unreasonable minds will long disagree about this one.

That said, if you think I'm going to go easy on Williams, then hear this: his remarks about the incident on ABC's "Good Morning America" on Friday, October 22, were unforgiveable. He said: “I’ve always thought the right wing were ones that were inflexible and intolerant and now I’m coming to realize that the orthodoxy at NPR, its representing the left.”

What really bothers and surprises me about this remark is that Williams, of all people, blithely tossed out the age-old canard that NPR is ideological in its outlook and character -- and left-wing at that.

(I don't mind adding that, in spite of my disagreements with what many conservatives say, they are not, by definition, "inflexible and intolerant" any more than liberals. Williams, whom I've long respected for his usually thoughtful, nuanced and clear-eyed analysis and his aversion of simplistic labels should know, too. But that's not my focus today.)

I have listened to NPR religiously and continuously since I was in high school in the late-1970s. Like most mere mortals, I cannot claim perfect objectivity about these things, but I believe with complete conviction that NPR is neither right nor left. It is about as close to being "objective" and "balanced" as any of our media in the United States. (We can argue all day whether there is such a thing as true objectivity and balance in media, no matter how hard they try; thus the quote marks above.)

If anything, the Williams firing was an example of a news organization that was trying to bend over backwards (maybe to a fault this time) to preserve its reputation as unbiased. Indeed, Williams' appearances over the years on Fox News, which quite clearly encourages journalists to express a point of view, apparently induced a lot of heartburn at NPR, which operates under strict journalistic guidelines meant to head off bias.

I should reveal that for several years NPR was a client of mine. So, go ahead, accuse me of bias. But having gotten a pretty good glimpse (though by no means complete) of this organization from the inside, I feel even more qualified than the average listener to make the claims I do about NPR.

The real problem I have with so many of those who accuse NPR of ideological  bias is that they either don't listen to NPR, they choose selectively from its offerings or they only know the network from what Limbaugh and Beck say about it. 

I've tried hard to understand the objections many conservatives have about NPR -- folks like Newt Gingrich, who has long called for cutting federal funding for public broadcasting and who are now seizing that cudgel again since the Williams firing. It appears their gripe is only ostensibly about ideological bias. Rather, they're really trying to tap into sentiment out there that disdains what many believe is a smarty-pants, elitist tone. Conservatives have long played off this hostility (Nixon, for example, made much of the effette East Coast intellectual elites), and Sarah Palin, Fox News and the Tea Partiers have picked up this baton more recently. This theme is what this is really about, not NPR's bias, and it's what really annoys me about this debate and about what Williams said on "Good Morning America". 

Those who say that NPR is the opposite of Fox News are right in one respect, but not the one they mean: it's not the liberal answer to Fox's conservativism (MSNBC has taken on that role). No, NPR represents fair and balanced journalism while Fox, with a knowing wink, only pretends to.

Jeff

P.S. Now, for all of you readers who are ready to write a 2,000-word rebbutal below, lecturing me on how anti-American NPR is, please do this first: go to the NPR website and pull up all the stories that ran on its programs over the last week. Or just pick "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered." If you conduct an honest content analysis of which points of view are represented in NPR's reporting, I can almost guarantee you'll see extraordinary balance between left and right, and a large number of NPR shows (think "Car Talk") contain no political points of view at all. Do the same over a month or a year, and I'll bet the proportions come out even closer to 50-50. If you do, and you still feel NPR stands for National Pinko Radio, I'll read what you say. If you don't, well, then you're wasting your time and mine.

P.P.S. A fun fact: at a PBS conference in February 2003, Gingrich declared, “It’s one of the great mysteries of how life evolves that I now find myself driving to work listening routinely every morning to NPR.” Give him credit for his candor.

Straight Talk About Fox News -- Part II

PEOPLE ARE once again wondering aloud whether or not Fox News has "crossed the line" between promoting or covering the Tea Party movement.

How absurd does that sound? What is there to wonder about? Of course the network promotes the Tea Party movement, which is made up of a lot of people who constitute its core audience. That's just good business, isn't it? That's just what we in the p.r. business call "branding," isn't it? 

This discussion comes up periodically, and I don't know why everyone is wasting time arguing about it. Still, straight news stories -- not the kind we might see on a network that pretends to be "fair and balanced" -- have to play by the rules of journalism and ascribe conclusions like this to others who offer opinion. I wrote about this about two years ago when the Washington Post referred to Fox as "a television network that many liberals say is biased against them." According to those rules, The Post can't say what everyone knows is true, that Fox is biased in favor of conservatives and against liberals.

I understand that, but it seems kind of silly to pretend, which is what Fox does when confronted with the charge of bias. Today's New York Times writes that "The network has faced regular accusations that it is promoting — not just covering — the Tea Party movement, something that its executives deny.

"Responding to a question from the media watchdog group Media Matters last week, News Corporation’s chief executive, Rupert Murdoch, said, 'I don’t think we should be supporting the Tea Party or any other party.'” 

And so the charade continues. This time it's in the wake of a controversy about whether or not Fox knew that a Tea Party group in Cincinnati was charging admission for an April 15 event it was holding with Sean Hannity as a speaker. Fox claims it was shocked, shocked! to learn about this, even though Hannity had been promoting the event on his Fox Web page and event organizers admitted they had been working with Hannity's staff on it. See here for more.

Deflection of criticism of Fox is another feature of our overall media landscape, and the Cincinnati Enquirer, did just that in its article about the controversy. Get this: the Enquirer article begins by saying:

First there was the Washington Post and its “salons.”

Now, Fox News and a Cincinnati Tea Party appearance?

What? How did this suddenly become a story about the Washington Post? And how can one seriously make a comparison between that paper and Fox News?

Sure, the Post came up with an ill-conceived plan last year to hold "salons," during which famous public figures, some in politics, would meet with companies that would pay for the privilege. But the plan never got out of the blueprint stage, and the publisher apologized profusely for even thinking about it after a barrage of criticism. Besides, the plan was to bring in people from many different points of view.

And, most important, the paper itself is a stickler for traditional rules of impartiality and balance (see quote about Fox above) -- outside the pages that are clearly designated for opinion. Don't let anyone tell you that's the case for Fox. 

Similarly, over the last year, we've too often seen our media, in trying to be fair, fail to step up and acknowledge the truth about GOP motives when its party leaders grossly mischaracterize Democratic initiatives. This happened when many Republicans branded the health care reform legislation as "socialist" and liable to produce "death panels," and it seemed to happen again this past week when Sen. Mitch McConnell said the pending financial services reform bill "not only allows for taxpayer-funded bailouts of Wall Street banks. It institutionalizes them." The White House, of course, argued that he's wrong. But, other than some columnists (Paul Krugman, for example, wrote yesterday that "Mr. McConnell is pretending to stand up for taxpayers against Wall Street while in fact doing just the opposite."), I didn't hear a lot of people say that this is just a patently ridiculous suggestion aimed, once again, at keeping the Democrats from showing that they're actually doing something. Again, why the pretense?

While I personally think that Fox is an outrage, that it traffics in a form of intellectual dishonesty that has truly distorted public discourse, I also think that it has every right to do that.  as My only beef with it is that it pretends to be something -- "fair and balanced" -- that everyone knows it isn't, and that so many others, who are rightfully playing by rules of civility, can't come right out and just say it.

Jeff 

Ted Baxter Watch: Lou Dobbs' Run for the White House

LIKE THE LOVABLE, vain and self-important jester Ted Baxter, anchor of fictional WJM-TV News on the "Mary Tyler Moore Show," former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs has for years used curious logic to entertain and excite countless Americans. Now that Dobbs has left his nightly newscast on CNN, where he chased big ratings by regularly bashing immigrants and misleadingly fanning fears of America's involvement in global trade, it would be a shame to lose track of such an important figure in American public life. Something tells me that he won't let us forget him.

So, with this post, I'm going to attempt an occasional series called "Ted Baxter Watch," which will report on what Dobbs is up to and how he's distorting reality and our national public policy dialogue.

Which brings me to the big news of this week: Dobbs says he may consider a run for The White House. He didn't waste too much time, did he? But he's on an urgent mission.

"Well, I’ll tell you this much," he said in an interivew on WTOP, a Washington news/talk radio station, "[running for President is] one of the discussions that we’re having. For the first time, I’m actually listening to some people about politics. I don’t think I’ve got the nature for it. [But] we’ve got to do something in this country, and I think that being in the public arena means you’ve got to be part of the solution."

Who can blame a guy for wanting to be part of the solution, even after he spent years being part of the problem?

No one should be surprised by this, by the way. A couple of years ago, Dobbs waved off suggestions that he might run for President (who was making those suggestions? his publicist? the man in the mirror?). But he later told the Wall Street Journal, "I cannot say never."

In the WTOP interview, Dobbs took on a seemingly statesmanlike tone, offering to reach "out to Latino groups, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, all of the groups with whom I have been in an ongoing debate to try to… bridge some of these conflicts and try to create solutions." Never mind that he will have to undergo a radical personality transplant before such groups, and other fair-minded Americans, will trust him enough to work with him. (He's trying, though. Last week on Telemundo he said he is one of the Latino community's "greatest friends.")

Or as, Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune put it in his blog post today, titled, "Lou Dobbs for president? Ha. Ha. Ha.", "You get famous on cable TV by taking hard-edged positions, creating controversy and fueling anger among both your friends and your enemies. That's not how you get elected to high office, which is why our presidents so rarely satisfy the more extreme factions of their parties."

There have been crazier and more quixotic runs for higher office in American history, and we're seeing another one develop right now in the person of Sarah Palin. But, Dobbs, no doubt, is serious and may have even convinced himself that he's a viable candidate. After his WTOP interviewer laughed at the suggestion that Dobbs would run for President, the former CNN anchor said, "What's so crazy about that? Golly!"

Golly.

Jeff

What the Nation Needs Now: A Model of Civil Discourse

I WISH MANY PEOPLE would spend four or five minutes watching this video of an exchange between U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Alice Hoagland, from Los Gatos, Calif., whose son Mark Bingham was killed in the plane that crashed in Shanksville, Penn., on September 11, 2001.

Their conversation took place on Wednesday, November 18, just minutes after Holder explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee why he decided to hold a federal civilian court criminal trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four others alleged to have been the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks.

What's really striking about the Holder-Hoagland exchange is its civility. There's no question that Hoagland disagrees profoundly with Holder's decision, and she told the Attorney General that she takes "great exception to your decision to give short shrift to military commissions."

One can imagine the emotion she associates with this issue. But, unlike so much of the disagreement over this very complex issue (and so many others these days), Hoagland did not rely on histrionics to make her point, nor did she accuse Holder of bad motives. She made a stately, reasoned, thoughtful, firm and passionate case to the Attorney General. And Holder made his case with the same measure of respect and reason. The very end of their exchange said it all to me, though I think you have to watch the video to get the full effect. It sounds rather uneventful here in writing:

Holder: “There are reasons why bringing this case in an Article III court [civil court, as opposed to military commission], when it comes to the admissibility of certain evidence, is really the right way to go, and it really maximizes our chances of getting a successful outcome.”

Hoagland: "Then we'll defer judgment."

Wow. So sober and restrained it's spectacular.

Reasonable minds are, naturally, disagreeing over this very difficult decision. I confess to being a bit unsure about it, though I think the Attorney General is doing the right thing. (See this piece in today’s Washington Post, by two former Bush Administration Justice Department officials, explaining why Holder’s decision is, on balance, a good one.) But I can’t imagine seeing such a sober, respectful debate on an emotional issue like this on the usual TV debate shows, or even, too often, within the confines of a Congressional hearing room. Indeed, many of the members of the committee Holder had just faced seemed bent on discrediting the decision and the reputation of the Obama Administration as a reasonable steward of the work of the federal government.

Just minutes after I heard the Holder-Hoagland exchange on C-SPAN radio yesterday, Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, appeared on C-SPAN and criticized Holder and called his decision “political” – saying that he suspects this is just part of the Obama Administration’s effort to appear to distance itself from the decisions of the Bush Administration, which was unpopular abroad.

“I do think this [decision] is sort of driven by a political campaign in which President Bush’s ideas of military commissions were so criticized," Sessions said on C-SPAN, "so this first big case they just determined to bring it in federal court.”

In fairness, Senator Sessions was otherwise reasonable, relying on his experience as a former prosecutor and on some compelling facts to make his case.

But, in my own book, one of the principles of civil discourse is refraining from drawing any conclusions about motives without any evidence.

That’s why I felt, by the way, that much of the criticism against the G.W. Bush Administration’s actions and decisions was uncivil, even as I disagreed pretty profoundly with many of those actions and decisions. Some critics ascribed sinister motives to Bush and his team. Unless I learn of evidence to the contrary, I believe they acted based on what they thought was good for the country, even if they made what I think were terribly flawed decisions.

One of the other impediments to civil discourse is intellectual dishonesty, which is readily on display in many a public forum in the United States, I'm afraid. So, too, is plain old nastiness and anger, which don't accomplish much more than whipping up people into an irrational state. That's not the way to grapple seriously with serious issues.

What’s so heartening about the Holder-Hoagland exchange is that, even for a fleeting four or five minutes, we see the kind of thoughtful and respectful debate that I wish would be the norm in many of the other overly heated forums of our national discourse.

I guess that's why we should savor the thoughtful and respectful exchange between Eric Holder and Alice Hoagland, especially when we're feeling cynical about our ability as a nation to solve difficult problems effectively and amicably. But, as any TV news producer can tell you, thoughtful and respectful are not the elements that make “good TV” -- though there are some notable exceptions, thank goodness. They fear that many American viewers will just tune out and turn in something else that can get their blood pumping. I'd like to think Americans are better than that.

Jeff

Update, Nov. 24: Case in point: last night, Larry King had the two eminent health care policy experts, Ann Coulter and Al Sharpton, on his show, debating the pending reform bill. In contrast to Coulter -- who advocated dropping the Khalid Sheik Mohammad trial and early childhood education to save enough money to pay for the "European-style health care plan" -- Sharpton was the reasoned, centrist statesman. But this is hardly what anyone can call civil, thoughtful policy debate.

Michael Jackson: Why Should We Care?

ONE THING I'VE LEARNED from my many years of pitching story ideas to journalists (which is a big part of what I do professionally) is that I have to answer the question that every reporter, editor or producer has to answer on behalf of his or her audiences: why should we care? What is it about this story that will enlighten or enrich at least a segment of the readers, listeners or viewers? Why should anyone beyond a small circle of interested parties care about this story, and, if it's a specific anecdote, what lessons does it offer that are important to the broader public interest?

It's a fair question, and I'm proud to say I've pitched lots stories that I felt met and exceeded the why-should-we-care threshold. Too many nevertheless went nowhere. (If I had a dime for every time that happened....)

Like the time more than 20 years ago when I pitched all of the news outlets in Chicago on some pretty compelling and important (at least to me) public policy issue (shame on me: I don't even remember what it was). No one bit. They were too busy with more important news, they said.

That night, each of late newscasts on the three or four local TV stations devoted a good three to five minutes (a lot) on a story about the world's largest lobster that someone caught off the coast of Australia, or some such place. It was good video, I suppose. More importantly, they didn't have to send out crews and on-air reporters. They just picked it off the satellite. How stupid was I? How did I ever think my story could compete with the world's largest lobster?

While our media have only gotten worse since then, highlighting the sensational or the silly over the serious, I've tried to get a grip on my annoyance to this now-permanent feature of America's frequently shameful and shallow media landscape (with all due respect to the few truly serious, accomplished journalists who remain part of it and wonder how things have come to this state). It's like cursing the rain.

Here we are now with a story that even I acknowledge is bigger than the world's largest lobster: the death of Michael Jackson. But, even as I sneak a peek at some of the volumes of archival footage of his life or catch snippets about the medical investigation into his death or about the fate of his children, I still ask myself: why should I care?

For the record, I admit that when the Jackson 5 stormed the music scene, I was swept away, too. I idolized Michael. Like so many kids of the day, I wanted to be him -- or at least the sixth, off-the-bench alternate Jackson. Why not? He was about my age, and I could carry a tune, so if he could do it, why couldn't I, right? (I was also sure at the time that I would someday play in the NBA.) The first 45 record I ever bought was "I'll Be There," and both that and "Mama's Pearl" (which I think was the flip side; anyone remember?) remain my two favorite J5 tunes. But as he and his music evolved, they and my taste went opposite directions. And then he became too -- how to say? -- idiosyncratic to take seriously. To me, following his story was like empty calories. Not worth the bite.

Of course we're interested in this story. To some extent we follow the news about Michael Jackson's death because we have a natural need to find out how a story ends. That's why I'm always pleased to hear about old friends I haven't kept up with and even about public figures who've been out of the limelight for a time. And the Michael Jackson story was way too eventful for anyone just to put down before finishing it, even for those like me who found it too bizarre and too sad to watch in recent years. Also, gawking at the misfortunes and grotesqueness (is that a word?) of others is human instinct, which is why it's an industry all to itself.

But as I sat in a coffee shop this morning, far enough away from the TV screen playing CNN Headline News to make it smugly seem I didn't care but close enough to see what it was playing, it was clear that the network couldn't let the broadcast go too long without returning to the news about Michael Jackson -- what's the family saying or not saying? what's the news from the medical examiner? what about the children? remembrances from the people who supposedly new him well; in-depth analysis (as if this is a pivotal moment in history, like the overthrow of the U.S. government; or, a new outbreak of the Black Plague, or, even bigger, the Super Bowl!) from all manner of Michael "experts"; clips of him performing through his very long (even for a 50 year old) career.

Scarcely any new news, especially when they're cycling these pieces almost every five minutes, but we wouldn't want the people to be without something about Michael. You get the feeling that, if they could, they would get rid of all the other stories about, oh, health care reform negotiations, more bombings in Iraq, the sputtering U.S. economy, even the sacrosanct weather and sports, for Michael's -- I mean God's -- sake! They speed through those minor stories almost breathlessly lest even one viewer miss the latest or, even worse, flip the channel to any of the other networks whose news hole is just as lopsided with Michael news. Even my beloved (and relatively more selective) NPR sees fit to insert a news item about Michael into most of its top-of-the-hour readings of news headlines, as far as I can tell. It's everywhere in the print media, too.

The managers of these news outlets will surely argue that they're just giving the people what they want. The people really care about this one.

I suppose that's the case. But, really, do we care so much about this story that we can't go a few minutes without another clip of the many lives (once-lovable/later inscrutable/still later troubled) of Michael Jackson? Even the biggest fans? Or does the blanket coverage force us to think we really care that much? Chicken and egg?

Jeff

So Much for the Straight Talk

LAST NIGHT'S "DAILY SHOW" put together an absolutely brilliant segment showing the hypocrisy of certain talking heads as they express their support for Sarah Palin as a Vice Presidential candidate. For this must-see TV, click here:

When you see Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Bill O'Reilly and McCain spokesperson Nancy Pfotenhauer make arguments for Palin over the last several days fly straight in the face of comments they made only a few months ago, you might 1) feel nauseated (as I did) that there are some people out there buying their line, 2) want to share with others (as I do) to show how these people will say anything to match their own interests, and 3) wonder (as I do) why it takes a comedy show to bring such hypocrisy to light.

If you take away the laughs, segments like this one suggest that "Daily Show" is doing what the real media organizations should be doing themselves -- but, for the most part aren't. (The only possible exception was Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," which often challenged guests with, shall we say, inconvenient inconsistencies.)Instead, we'll see some of these same people make many of the same intellectually dishonest and inconsistent statements without any challenge.

This is truly only the beginning. [Sigh]

Jeff

Listening to the World

THE PUBLIC DIPLOMACY BLOG, produced by the University of Southern California's Center on Public Diplomacy, published a posting the other day about how the cable system of one U.S. city -- Burlington, Vermont -- recently decided to reinstate its airing of the Al-Jazeera English channel.

According to the post's reporting by Shawn Powers, a research associate at the Center for Public Diplomacy, Burlington Telecom (BT), the local cable provider, had pulled Al-Jazeera English from its offerings "in response to what [the general manager of BT] described as 'dozens' of complaints from angry subscribers. Because the broadcaster is publicly owned and financed, Mayor Bob Kiss intervened and called for a broader public discussion regarding the merits of removing Al-Jazeera English from BT."

Subsequently, "two separate forums were organized where citizens and advocacy groups could argue their case for or against keeping Al-Jazeera English on the air," Powers writes. They even invited Al-Jazeera English Managing Director, Tony Burman, and the network's leading American-based correspondent, Josh Rushing, to take questions from Burlington residents.

The result: AJE is back on BT, making it one of only four outlets in the U.S. where one can view the network: Buckeye Cable in Toledo, Ohio; in the Pentagon; and via the Internet on Youtube and JumpTV.

Considering there were 6,635 local cable TV systems in the U.S. in 2007, according to the  National Cable and Telecommunications Association, for practical purposes, almost none have taken the step to adopt AJE as one of its offerings to viewers.

Some systems might rationalize that they don't have the space on their chock-full channels for yet another. But it's hard to understand why, if they can make room for some of the schlocky programming you see as you flip through the 100+ channels most local cable system provide, that they can't find space for something like AJE.

The fact is, it would not exactly be a popular move for a cable system to air a channel that has been branded in this country and others as anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and pro al-Qaeda. Closer observers than I of the Al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language precursor to AJE, have raised such concerns, and I'm not in a position to argue with them, as I don't understand Arabic. I know, too.  I have seen enough clips that reinforce similar concerns. Also, many Arab countries have found Al-Jazeera, the Arabic version, to be quite  maddening, too. As a media observer I know from one Arab country described to me, it's sort of like the Fox News Channel of the Middle East. Sensational and sometimes loose with the facts. Okay.

But AJE, which is operated independently from the Arabic channel, is different, at least it is supposed to be. It is populated quite heavily by accomplished Western journalists from outlets such as the BBC and from American and Canadian TV and radio stations and networks. In fact, I know two of them quite well and have met several others. We're talking top-quality journalists, who are bringing Western standards of journalism to the enterprise.

That's not to say that there might not be items on the network that one might find provocative or at odds with our own points of view. I've seen some clips that, for my tastes, seemed to focus disproportionately on images of Israeli soldiers battling with rock-throwing Palestinian kids and young men. They made me wince. And I was troubled when I heard that Dave Marash, the channel's founding North American anchor and one of the most accomplished TV journalists in the land (formerly he was a longtime and brilliant correspondent for ABC's "Nightline"), left AJE this past spring, citing concerns about "an anti-American sensibility creeping into the coverage," as the New York Times paraphrased Marash. “To put it bluntly," Marash told the Times, "the channel that’s on now — while excellent, and I plan to be a lifetime viewer — is not the channel that I signed up to do.” That's a bit cryptic; it could be that he didn't get the support he needed to be anchor, not that he has profound problems with the content.

But, in fairness, I can't evaluate the network completely just yet. I've probably seen more of AJE than most Americans, but I have only seen some small snippets of AJE via the Internet. So I can't say with good authority what's going on there or evaluate what Marash says or whether what I saw is representative. It would not surprise me if much of the coverage is highly critical of the U.S. and Israel, though. So, too, are a lot of established news outlets, such as the BBC, which runs on many cable TV systems and public radio stations across the U.S.

I think, however, that U.S. audiences are missing something -- unlike viewers in most parts of Europe, where AJE runs, and even in Israel, where Powers says Al-Jazeera English is so popular "that it recently replaced the BBC World and CNN International on the two top Israeli cable systems."

What they're getting is a different perspective from parts of the world and of parts of the world than nearly all U.S. media provide. AJE broadcasts in four different day parts from four regional hubs: Doha, Qatar (the mother ship), which covers the Middle East and Africa; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, which is responsible for all of Asia; London, which covers Europe; and Washington, D.C., whose territory is all of the Western Hemisphere (not just the U.S.).

When is the last time we saw U.S. networks provide this broad a range of perspectives (yes, I assume there is a point of view or at least a distinct vantage point, even in the straight news pieces, just as there is in U.S. media) and of locales around the world? Not for a long time, if ever -- though I make an exception for National Public Radio, which is has actually expanded its reach around the globe, as other U.S. media have retrenched internationally.

I have a lot of respect for U.S. broadcasters and lot of trouble with many of them, too (that's for another day). But, let's face it, most of what they focus on is very U.S.-centric and one most days leaves out almost all of the rest of the world. They're just giving the famously parochial audiences what they want (though that's debatable -- also for another day). And they all tend to cover the same two or three big stories about the latest political issues and celebrity scandals. It just seems like one big echo chamber sometimes.

I think it would be refreshing to hear what broadcasters in Kuala Lampur or Doha are saying about the world, even if some of what I hear from them makes me a bit uneasy. Even U.K. media, which is closest to what we have here (for better and worse), is a nice break from typical American fare. Isn't that difference worth something to us, particularly if we, America, fancy ourselves the leaders of the world?

And, if we are truly trying to understand what the rest of the world thinks of us and how we can regain our favorable standing abroad, can we afford not to listen to what others are saying and doing elsewhere, even if we don't like what we hear from time to time?

One of the complaints many around the world have of Americans is that we don't seem to care about the rest of world or bother to listen to their points of view. Isn't it worth something to us to show that America is capable of listening to the rest of world -- and truly cares what others have to say?

Jeff

Obama: The Digital Campaign Pioneer

A PIECE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES a few days ago pointed out what others have observed recently: that the Obama campaign has used digital (that is internet, etc.) strategies more skillfully than any of the other campaigns. I'm not one to make such pronouncements, but it's probably safe to say that political campaigns will never be the same again. Or will they?

There's little doubt that the campaign has mobilized followers in ways and in numbers that scarcely any movement or political campaign has before. Those huge crowds of tens of thousands of people who attended Obama rallies late in the primary season and the many who organized their own personal outreaches on his behalf didn't just magically show up. It was all part of a process that made it easy for people who resonated to Obama's message and persona to join the bandwagon. Through social networking tools like Facebook and through Obama's official campaign site, there were many ways that people could connect and feel like they were contributing.

That's very empowering,and it clearly made it possible for many supporters to move from passive support online to real-life action on the hustings.

Didn't all of the campaigns do this? Apparently not. The Times article cited Yochai Benkler, author of “The Wealth of Networks,” an influential book about online collaboration, saying that he "points out a crucial difference between Mr. Obama’s approach to attracting supporters and that of his chief rivals. 'On the McCain and Clinton Web sites, there is a transactional screen,' Mr. Benkler said. 'It is just about the money. Donate, then we can build the relationship. In Obama’s it’s inverted: build the relationship and then donate.'”

Shouldn't every campaign operate like this from now on? Yes, and, well, maybe. A few work colleagues of mine, some of whom actual implement such virtual social networking strategies for our clients, and I sat around yesterday talking about this phenomenon. We agreed on a couple of caveats for any politicians to be cautious of should they decided to campaign as Obama did.

First, a social networking strategy such as Obama's requires the campaign to give a lot of control over the messages and directions of the campaign. Sure, all of the online supporters are given talking points and careful directions about how to behave and proceed in their personal activities. But, for the most part, they were on their own.

That sort of structure scares a lot of campaigns, as you never know if one of your far-flung supporters will say or do something that will embarrass the campaign and the candidate. Though, as my colleague Ben Clark, who has run digital operations for campaigns in the past, pointed out, there seems to be more acknowledgment today that the candidate cannot be held responsible for bad behavior of its distant supporters. That wasn't so true a few years ago, Clark said, when opponents of his boss, Howard Dean, tried to nail him for nasty things a Dean supporter wrote on a chat board someplace.

I hope Ben is right about that. I hold my breath though; desperate political opponents may try anything to tar each other with unfair allegations. And there are people out there who will buy. 

Ceding control is risky, too, because if a candidate disappoints in some way, angry followers can turn on him in a second and in force. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Caveat number two for any candidate who wishes to use digital tools to campaign is this: there's no substitute for a good product. The tools themselves did not win the campaign (so far) for Obama. They were just a medium through which excited followers could express their support. Let's face it, Obama may be one of the best campaigners in a generation (which is saying a lot, as I thought that of Bill Clinton). People want to be a part of his ascension. They are swept away by his spellbinding speeches and star quality.

As a public relations practitioner, I have always laughed when people use the word "spin" to describe what we do. Yes, we can accentuate the positive and try to frame discussions in certain ways. But, at bottom, you can't spin away the truth (without lying, which is not part of the effective p.r. toolbox, as surprising as that may sound to some). When I first started working for a p.r. firm, a friend said of my newly adopted field: "Oh those are the people who make shit taste like ice cream." Well, guess what, no amount of "spin" can make shit taste list ice cream.

Third, as Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the namesake of the DailyKos political blog, said in the Times article, “The Obama campaign is still very much a top-bottom operation. They’ve made it very easy for people to hop on the bandwagon, but those in the back of that wagon still get no say in where the campaign is going.”
One has to wonder if some disillusioned supporters in the back of wagon get frustrated somewhere down the road (maybe after Obama becomes President) that their views are not being taken into account. That the campaign was coveting their bodies only, not their minds. I suspect that most understand that this is just not reasonable, that millions of followers cannot expect to have that kind of input. But what if some walk away feeling stymied, used?

All those caveats aside, it will be fun to watch how Obama uses these new tools of digital communications, taking the political process to a whole new place.

Jeff

'Just produce better papers.... Stop having people write articles to win Pulitzer Prizes.'

YESTERDAY, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL PUBLISHED an interview with Rupert Murdoch, in which he opined about the business of the media in the age of digital communications.

While he was not bullish on the future of newspapers, the chairman and chief executive of News Corp., obviously values them enough that his company recently purchased Dow Jones, which owns the Journal. But when he was asked near the end of the interview whether there are any solutions to the current demise of American newspapers, Murdoch had this to say:

“Yeah, just produce better papers, papers that people want to read. Stop having people write articles to win Pulitzer Prizes. Give people what they want to read and make it interesting.”

In a way, it’s a rather startling statement from someone who has made his fortune selling newspapers, especially his latest acquisition – the Wall Street Journal – which has made its reputation on the sort of in-depth, thoughtful journalism that gets the attention of Pulitzer committees. It’s all the more striking to see these remarks recorded in black and white in the Journal itself. (The Journal staff must have groaned when they read that one.)

But in another way, isn’t this what we would expect? I don’t mean that in a pejorative or smarmy way. A publisher’s No. 1 job is, of course, to sell newspapers, keeping the business afloat and profitable. If in-depth thoughtful, journalism is not what’s “interesting” and therefore inhibits the sales of papers, what’s a publisher to do?

In most cases, the only thing to do an environment where even the most respected newspapers in the country are hemorrhaging money is to cut staff and, in some cases, cut substance and excellence along with it. I remember a few years ago, for example, that the L.A. Times laid off (or was it bought out?) dozens of journalists only days after it hauled in something like five Pulitzers. It’s still a substantive paper today, to be sure, but something is surely lost when fewer, in many cases less experienced people are putting out the paper than those before them.

Maybe Murdoch simply deserves credit for stating the obvious: that lots of media – print and broadcast alike – have apparently decided to feature more sensational, celebrity-centric and “softer” news than hard-hitting, diligently reported coverage about the big issues of our communities, nation and world. What's more, one can argue that most Americans have become more apathetic about serious public interest issues and that modern media are just following them, giving the people what they want. The media are only dumbing down to stay at the level of the people, they say, not the other way around. I don’t buy that, but two people can argue that one all day and night.

No, nothing new here. Still, to say it out loud, as Murdoch did, and with no apparent self-consciousness that he is dismissing an essential element of our nation’s civil society is rather breathtaking (not to get on my high horse, or anything).

And if that’s Murdoch’s – and others publishers’ – solution to stopping what appears to be an inexorable decline of American journalism, we’re in more trouble than I thought we were.

I have a solution.

I don’t think that making a profit is entirely the enemy of good journalism. (Bad journalistic practices, for one, are an enemy of good journalism – a tautology). But statements like Murdoch’s suggest that it’s a big factor. So why not create media organizations that take the need for profits out of the equation?

The fact is, we have examples of such media organizations. Prime among them: National Public Radio, which generates stunningly good journalism every day. (Note: NPR used to be a client of mine, but I’ve been a fan of it since I started listening in the 1970s.) And, by the way, NPR is flourishing – an ever-growing audience has allowed it to expand bureaus around the world and deepen its roster of reporters on a variety of important topics – at the very time when other (mostly for-profit) news media are retrenching. Who says that good journalism is bad for business?

And there is the BBC, which, like NPR, is publicly funded, yet operated independent of the British government.

Maybe we need to find ways of setting up more (well-funded) non-profit, and perhaps even publicly funded institutions that enable good journalism to do what it should do: hold a mirror up to society, expand our horizons, educate, and, yes, even entertain.

I say this recognizing that there is close to no chance of achieving such a vision, at least not anytime soon. First of all, it’s hard to imagine where the money for such enterprises would come from, as neither Congress nor the giving public seems to be in much a mood to cough it up.

Second, any proposal of this sort will certainly meet with profound suspicion from not only the right, which has long been hostile to public broadcast for it’s alleged “liberal bias”, but possibly also the left. They may assume these endeavors will be ideologically driven in one direction or another.

Admittedly, it’s a fantasy. But reality is looking like a much less attractive alternative.

Jeff