Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Media and Politics: An Epic Struggle
In our representative democracy, candidates for any elected office need to find a viable means to communicate its policy positions to a large number of people. Before the popularity of television and the radio, nomination and endorsement by a large political party was crucial, for only a party had the bureaucratic and organizational capabilities to reach millions of Americans at once. Since the 1950’s, however, aspiring politicians of all stripes have gradually embraced mainstream media as a cheaper and more direct method of mass campaigning (see footnote 2, Chapter Eight in Leighley).
Relying on the media as your prime communication channel is not without its risks. While candidates try to use the media as an unobstructed conduit to convey their policy positions to the public, reporters have a very different agenda. With the goal of maximizing profit, mass media eschew extensive coverage of political issues, the information most relevant for voters, in favor of negative stories that excite and tantalize without requiring prior knowledge of the issues. Most stories the media covers predictably resemble a popular Greek tragedy: stories of prominent politicians at the height of their power brought to public humiliation by a familiar character flaw. Stories about the strategic environment of the campaign such as who’s winning in the polls are also common since they require no political background for comprehension.
The tension between the interests of politicians and reporters are manifest in the ’06 Senate race in Virginia. Two months ago, Republican George Allen was leading his opponent, Jim Webb, by a wide margin in the polls. Allen’s public relation team had a fairly firm handle on the type of coverage reaching the public. That aura of control dissipated quickly when Allen was caught on tape insulting a cameraman using a racial slur on Aug 14 (see Washington Post article). In short order, local and national media outlets swarmed to the story like flies to carrion, swiftly putting Allen on the defensive. In the ensuing weeks, stories surfaced about Allen’s past connections with white supremacists, an alleged affinity for Confederate ideals, bigotry as a college football player, and even his Jewish ethnicity. At the same time, Jim Webb, his Democratic opponent, has faced his share of controversy. He has been criticized for sexist remarks he made in 1979, rebuffing Nancy Reagan over a political ad, and anti-semitism.
In addition to besmirching their public images, both Allen and Webb have suffered in their ability to communicate their policy positions. In the past six weeks, the Richmond Times-Dispatch published fourteen articles on scandals pertaining to both candidates, four on the polls, and only six on policy positions. Coverage in national newspapers like the New York Times reflected this trend. Against juicy scandals, serious policy debate holds scant attention.
Regaining control of the media has driven both candidates to pursue opportunities to speak directly to the camera. Both appeared on September 17th edition of “Meet the Press” to emphasize their distinct policy differences in person. Allen and Webb have attempted to reshape the pubic debate with poignant political ads to the same effect (see body armor ad). Their websites are dedicated entirely to policy debate.
While mass media has magnified the power of political campaigns, it has also complicated it.
In our representative democracy, candidates for any elected office need to find a viable means to communicate its policy positions to a large number of people. Before the popularity of television and the radio, nomination and endorsement by a large political party was crucial, for only a party had the bureaucratic and organizational capabilities to reach millions of Americans at once. Since the 1950’s, however, aspiring politicians of all stripes have gradually embraced mainstream media as a cheaper and more direct method of mass campaigning (see footnote 2, Chapter Eight in Leighley).
Relying on the media as your prime communication channel is not without its risks. While candidates try to use the media as an unobstructed conduit to convey their policy positions to the public, reporters have a very different agenda. With the goal of maximizing profit, mass media eschew extensive coverage of political issues, the information most relevant for voters, in favor of negative stories that excite and tantalize without requiring prior knowledge of the issues. Most stories the media covers predictably resemble a popular Greek tragedy: stories of prominent politicians at the height of their power brought to public humiliation by a familiar character flaw. Stories about the strategic environment of the campaign such as who’s winning in the polls are also common since they require no political background for comprehension.
The tension between the interests of politicians and reporters are manifest in the ’06 Senate race in Virginia. Two months ago, Republican George Allen was leading his opponent, Jim Webb, by a wide margin in the polls. Allen’s public relation team had a fairly firm handle on the type of coverage reaching the public. That aura of control dissipated quickly when Allen was caught on tape insulting a cameraman using a racial slur on Aug 14 (see Washington Post article). In short order, local and national media outlets swarmed to the story like flies to carrion, swiftly putting Allen on the defensive. In the ensuing weeks, stories surfaced about Allen’s past connections with white supremacists, an alleged affinity for Confederate ideals, bigotry as a college football player, and even his Jewish ethnicity. At the same time, Jim Webb, his Democratic opponent, has faced his share of controversy. He has been criticized for sexist remarks he made in 1979, rebuffing Nancy Reagan over a political ad, and anti-semitism.
In addition to besmirching their public images, both Allen and Webb have suffered in their ability to communicate their policy positions. In the past six weeks, the Richmond Times-Dispatch published fourteen articles on scandals pertaining to both candidates, four on the polls, and only six on policy positions. Coverage in national newspapers like the New York Times reflected this trend. Against juicy scandals, serious policy debate holds scant attention.
Regaining control of the media has driven both candidates to pursue opportunities to speak directly to the camera. Both appeared on September 17th edition of “Meet the Press” to emphasize their distinct policy differences in person. Allen and Webb have attempted to reshape the pubic debate with poignant political ads to the same effect (see body armor ad). Their websites are dedicated entirely to policy debate.
While mass media has magnified the power of political campaigns, it has also complicated it.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Government Secrecy & the Constitution
This Monday, Yeshiva University invited Steven Aftergood, a leading expert on government secrecy, to discuss his work with Prof. Pimpare’s Media and Politics class. Aftergood heads the FAS Project on Government Secrecy, a watchdog group whose mission is to check excessive secrecy in government affairs and generate public awareness of current secrecy issues. To those ends, Mr. Aftergood is also the chief editor of Secrecy News, an email newsletter, and a blog.
The lecture began with a description of security classification, the process by which the government shields sensitive information from public dissemination. He then went on to provide specific examples in American history of how and with what frequency classification has been applied. From the outset, Mr. Aftergood was eager to convey his own opinion on the subject: With exceptions, government officials should seek to create an environment of openness and transparency where the American public can hold their elected representatives fully accountable to their actions.
The first slide was a Daily Brief, declassified in 2004, delivered to the President a week before 9/11 entitled “Bin Ladin determined to Strike the United States.” Perhaps, Mr. Aftergood admitted, broadcasting this message on every major media outlet would have proved ineffective or even counterproductive. Yet that consideration cannot justify the Administration’s decision to hoard and dismiss the brief. Had the Administration shared the information with certain security officials with the intention of alerting the relevant airports, the Twin Towers may still be standing today.
Mr. Aftergood understood the incident as indicative of two disturbing trends in government secrecy, one endemic to the system and the other fostered by the Bush Administration. An attitude of laziness and risk-aversion contributes to a general tendency on the part of government bureaucrats to classify whatever appears to be somewhat sensitive, without giving serious thought to its significance. This bureaucratic ineptitude has been rewarded and vindicated by the Bush Administration’s preference for secrecy and trust over openness and accountability. Both trends, according to Mr. Aftergood, can precipitate a dangerous shift from democratic norms in an era where freedom and civil liberties are threatened on every continent.
Following the lecture, several students remarked over pizza wheels how Mr. Aftergood seemed to evade questions with open-ended responses. When asked how the government can responsibly release only some information without presenting a distorted picture of the issue, Mr. Aftergood ambiguously replied, “Withholding all information would create more problems then it would potentially solve.”
To my fellow students, I would counter that heady issues such as secrecy and accountability hinge on key Constitutional debates, debates that aren't amenable to definitive answers. What methods are available for a democratic government to protect its citizens? Must a citizen be appraised of every foreign policy decision before its implementation? These are questions that the Constitution itself leaves open, spurring scholars to constantly reevaluate American ideals in light of current situations.
This Monday, Yeshiva University invited Steven Aftergood, a leading expert on government secrecy, to discuss his work with Prof. Pimpare’s Media and Politics class. Aftergood heads the FAS Project on Government Secrecy, a watchdog group whose mission is to check excessive secrecy in government affairs and generate public awareness of current secrecy issues. To those ends, Mr. Aftergood is also the chief editor of Secrecy News, an email newsletter, and a blog.
The lecture began with a description of security classification, the process by which the government shields sensitive information from public dissemination. He then went on to provide specific examples in American history of how and with what frequency classification has been applied. From the outset, Mr. Aftergood was eager to convey his own opinion on the subject: With exceptions, government officials should seek to create an environment of openness and transparency where the American public can hold their elected representatives fully accountable to their actions.
The first slide was a Daily Brief, declassified in 2004, delivered to the President a week before 9/11 entitled “Bin Ladin determined to Strike the United States.” Perhaps, Mr. Aftergood admitted, broadcasting this message on every major media outlet would have proved ineffective or even counterproductive. Yet that consideration cannot justify the Administration’s decision to hoard and dismiss the brief. Had the Administration shared the information with certain security officials with the intention of alerting the relevant airports, the Twin Towers may still be standing today.
Mr. Aftergood understood the incident as indicative of two disturbing trends in government secrecy, one endemic to the system and the other fostered by the Bush Administration. An attitude of laziness and risk-aversion contributes to a general tendency on the part of government bureaucrats to classify whatever appears to be somewhat sensitive, without giving serious thought to its significance. This bureaucratic ineptitude has been rewarded and vindicated by the Bush Administration’s preference for secrecy and trust over openness and accountability. Both trends, according to Mr. Aftergood, can precipitate a dangerous shift from democratic norms in an era where freedom and civil liberties are threatened on every continent.
Following the lecture, several students remarked over pizza wheels how Mr. Aftergood seemed to evade questions with open-ended responses. When asked how the government can responsibly release only some information without presenting a distorted picture of the issue, Mr. Aftergood ambiguously replied, “Withholding all information would create more problems then it would potentially solve.”
To my fellow students, I would counter that heady issues such as secrecy and accountability hinge on key Constitutional debates, debates that aren't amenable to definitive answers. What methods are available for a democratic government to protect its citizens? Must a citizen be appraised of every foreign policy decision before its implementation? These are questions that the Constitution itself leaves open, spurring scholars to constantly reevaluate American ideals in light of current situations.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
A Journey to Blogsphere
As the internet continues to penetrate greater segments of our cultural existence, the already-burgeoning power of the blog in American politics has finally been recognized. Ned Lamont’s improbable victory over veteran Senator Joe Lieberman was characterized as a war fought and won by a dedicated army of bloggers (see New York Times).
You may be asking yourselves whether blogs adhere to the timeless standards of journalism such as serious investigative research, unbiased accounts, and a commitment to professionalism. Undoubtedly, your average blog boils down to an angry man in pajamas venting to a screen. Yet a good blog has the ability to spark meaningful discussion about important issues with substantive entries.
For example, read Kos’s scathing critique of the Democratic Party’s traditional campaign strategies entitled Building a Narrative. He makes the argument that appears difficult to refute: People will vote for the candidate with the better story, rather than the one with the best record. In other words, Democrats will often present their case in the form of statistics, “appeal[ing] to voter's brains”, while the Republicans are experts at building a narrative about their candidate that people can easily digest. By way of illustration, Kos writes that the Republican narrative of the 2004 presidential election was “1) Bush will defend America, and 2) Kerry is a flip flopper.”
Comments to the blog posting ranged from the hasty “Right on!” to the thoughtful “good point, but inadequate evidence cited.” LihTox agreed with Kos’s suggested changes, but dismissed his unstated assumption.
On a similar note, another blogger believes that Kos has created a false dichotomy: Narratives needn’t replace useful information. If used correctly, facts can provide the meat to a compelling story.
I myself am not entirely convinced by the evidence, notwithstanding the argument’s logical appeal. Kos uses two presidential elections to build his case, not exactly representative samplings.
Secondly, I need to see more evidence that Democrats actually campaign this way. The statistics on Kos’s entry come from the unofficial Ford-for-Senate website. What does Ford say on his official website? How would it compare to the content on the website of his Republican opponent Bob Corker? In my estimation, Democrats tell plenty of good narratives, they just don’t descend to the level of deploying fear tactics like Karl Rove and the Republicans will do. One line from Kerry’s 2004 debate, “You can be certain and wrong”, was a terrific narrative, in my opinion.
The blogsphere can never take the place of news, but it could evolve into a vibrant new forum for public debate, a modern-day agora.
As the internet continues to penetrate greater segments of our cultural existence, the already-burgeoning power of the blog in American politics has finally been recognized. Ned Lamont’s improbable victory over veteran Senator Joe Lieberman was characterized as a war fought and won by a dedicated army of bloggers (see New York Times).
You may be asking yourselves whether blogs adhere to the timeless standards of journalism such as serious investigative research, unbiased accounts, and a commitment to professionalism. Undoubtedly, your average blog boils down to an angry man in pajamas venting to a screen. Yet a good blog has the ability to spark meaningful discussion about important issues with substantive entries.
For example, read Kos’s scathing critique of the Democratic Party’s traditional campaign strategies entitled Building a Narrative. He makes the argument that appears difficult to refute: People will vote for the candidate with the better story, rather than the one with the best record. In other words, Democrats will often present their case in the form of statistics, “appeal[ing] to voter's brains”, while the Republicans are experts at building a narrative about their candidate that people can easily digest. By way of illustration, Kos writes that the Republican narrative of the 2004 presidential election was “1) Bush will defend America, and 2) Kerry is a flip flopper.”
Comments to the blog posting ranged from the hasty “Right on!” to the thoughtful “good point, but inadequate evidence cited.” LihTox agreed with Kos’s suggested changes, but dismissed his unstated assumption.
Most Americans aren't stupid, but they are distracted.
With the terrible economy, they're working more than full-time, then
coming home to raise their kids. They don't have time to read
Congressional bills (and educate themselves to the point where they can understand what the densely-worded bills are saying), and they certainly don't have the energy. They don't extensively research the candidates they vote for, because there are other things that are more important to them: making a living, raising their kids, having a little fun.
On a similar note, another blogger believes that Kos has created a false dichotomy: Narratives needn’t replace useful information. If used correctly, facts can provide the meat to a compelling story.
I myself am not entirely convinced by the evidence, notwithstanding the argument’s logical appeal. Kos uses two presidential elections to build his case, not exactly representative samplings.
Secondly, I need to see more evidence that Democrats actually campaign this way. The statistics on Kos’s entry come from the unofficial Ford-for-Senate website. What does Ford say on his official website? How would it compare to the content on the website of his Republican opponent Bob Corker? In my estimation, Democrats tell plenty of good narratives, they just don’t descend to the level of deploying fear tactics like Karl Rove and the Republicans will do. One line from Kerry’s 2004 debate, “You can be certain and wrong”, was a terrific narrative, in my opinion.
The blogsphere can never take the place of news, but it could evolve into a vibrant new forum for public debate, a modern-day agora.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Driving it Home
The fifth chapter of our course’s textbook, Mass Media & Politics, scrutinizes the complex relationship government maintains with the media. Is the relationship necessarily adversarial in nature, or congenial? To what extent do politicians embrace the familiar channels of mass media to purport their crafted message? To what extent are they successful?
Perhaps we can begin to explore these questions by focusing our attention on a Sept. 8th Press Briefing by Tony Snow, a complete transcript of which is available on the official White House website. Snow set the mood and theme of the briefing with the President’s 9/11 itinerary: a memorial ceremony in New York followed by wreath-laying ceremonies in Shanksville, PA, and the Pentagon. Noteworthy was how Snow clearly articulated the apolitical nature of these events:
“This is not a political speech; there is not going to be calls to action for
Congress. It will be a reflection of what September 11th has meant to the
President, and to the country; the realities it has brought to all of our
attention and how we can move forward together to try to win the war on terror.”
The statement was to become Tony Snow’s overarching message animating most of his responses: 9/11 will not be used as an opportunity to shame Congress into legalizing the NSA wiretapping program or the CIA's worldwide torture cells.
The White House Press Office, in communicating the goals and intentions of the President, generally operates on the proposition that “less is more.” Each day, the Press Office will choose a singular message to project. Regardless of the content of a particular question at the briefing, the Press Secretary will often return to this theme time and time again. Economizing on political discussion allows the government to better control the direction of the discourse, as well as ensuring that the Tony Snow is never required to answer a difficult question; he just recycles the same answers.
Reporters, for their part, attempt to lure the Press Secretary into making unintented, revealing remarks in the interests of unearthing a newsworthy story. At this particular briefing, questions were raised such as "Does the President believe that if the Democrats control one House or another of Congress, security for America will be somewhat compromised?" Snow casually dismissed the question with the evasive rejoinder "we don't think the Democrats are going to win." Snow deflected the question rather than allow it to obscure his crafted message.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Network (1976) - A Critical Review
Sidney Lumet’s cult-classic Network (1976), as seen from the eyes of a jaded 90’s teenager, may seem redundant and manifest. The prospect of our hallowed media establishments, guardians of free speech and public accountability, kowtowing to corporate demands and caving in to public interests is, to most, a foregone conclusion. Yet the film’s contribution to our understanding of mass media is the way it adroitly tracks the gradual decline of a television network’s moral standards in careful, calibrated steps. Hackett’s decision to murder his erstwhile star Howard Beale, albeit chilling, came with little shock as a fit ending to a well-developed plot. Reminiscent of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, the plot’s logical progression guides its viewers to a climax far-removed from its starting point, yet completely credible and coherent.
Network grapples with a number of salient issues concerning today’s media, most principally, the economic pressures that influence the final news product. Who decides the evening’s nightly news? The film offers several possibilities, but ultimately leaves this complex question unanswered. Diana Christensen (Dunaway) represents the “profit-seeker” characterization of mass media: Large media corporations, pursuing ever-higher profits in the form of wider newspaper subscriptions and television ratings, will peddle the most entertaining, digestible news stories available. In Network, comprehensive coverage of foreign and domestic politics is gradually replaced with programs starring soothsayers, Communist guerrillas, and “the mad prophet of the airwaves,” Howard Beale. Beale himself denounced the trend on his show:
Another growing influence on the media is corporate capitalism, as portrayed by Arthur Jenson, the CEO of CC&A, of which USB is a subsidiary. In a truly memorable piece of stellar acting, Jenson takes Beale into the darkened conference room and strongly “convinces” him to herald the ascendancy of capitalism over democratic institutions on his show. Dramatizing the “propagandist model”, Director Sidney Lumet explains how media outlets are used as tools for exploitation by those with economic or political power. Analogously, media moguls such as Rupert Murdoch allegedly attempt to sway public opinion by airing political shows with somewhat slanted news coverage.
Humor aside, Network is about these two powerful forces sandwiching the media today. The result is the erosion of the traditional standards of journalism endemic to the industry. One clear loser is the vitality of American democracy, incidentally the very message Howard Beale conveys to his audience before his untimely death.
Sidney Lumet’s cult-classic Network (1976), as seen from the eyes of a jaded 90’s teenager, may seem redundant and manifest. The prospect of our hallowed media establishments, guardians of free speech and public accountability, kowtowing to corporate demands and caving in to public interests is, to most, a foregone conclusion. Yet the film’s contribution to our understanding of mass media is the way it adroitly tracks the gradual decline of a television network’s moral standards in careful, calibrated steps. Hackett’s decision to murder his erstwhile star Howard Beale, albeit chilling, came with little shock as a fit ending to a well-developed plot. Reminiscent of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, the plot’s logical progression guides its viewers to a climax far-removed from its starting point, yet completely credible and coherent.
Network grapples with a number of salient issues concerning today’s media, most principally, the economic pressures that influence the final news product. Who decides the evening’s nightly news? The film offers several possibilities, but ultimately leaves this complex question unanswered. Diana Christensen (Dunaway) represents the “profit-seeker” characterization of mass media: Large media corporations, pursuing ever-higher profits in the form of wider newspaper subscriptions and television ratings, will peddle the most entertaining, digestible news stories available. In Network, comprehensive coverage of foreign and domestic politics is gradually replaced with programs starring soothsayers, Communist guerrillas, and “the mad prophet of the airwaves,” Howard Beale. Beale himself denounced the trend on his show:
This company is now in the hands of CCA, the Communication Corporation ofThis “bottom-up” pressure propels Christensen to insane ends, cutting deals with unsavory criminals and orchestrating an assassination. To a far lesser degree, television has followed this degenerative path in the face of across-the-board decreases in revenue share.
America. And when the twelfth largest company in the world controls the most
awesome, god-damned propaganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what s**t will be peddled for truth on this network. So, you listen to me! Television
is not the truth. Television is a goddamned amusement park. Television is a
circus. So turn off your television sets. Turn them off and leave them off!
(Courtesy of Philosophical Films)
Another growing influence on the media is corporate capitalism, as portrayed by Arthur Jenson, the CEO of CC&A, of which USB is a subsidiary. In a truly memorable piece of stellar acting, Jenson takes Beale into the darkened conference room and strongly “convinces” him to herald the ascendancy of capitalism over democratic institutions on his show. Dramatizing the “propagandist model”, Director Sidney Lumet explains how media outlets are used as tools for exploitation by those with economic or political power. Analogously, media moguls such as Rupert Murdoch allegedly attempt to sway public opinion by airing political shows with somewhat slanted news coverage.
Humor aside, Network is about these two powerful forces sandwiching the media today. The result is the erosion of the traditional standards of journalism endemic to the industry. One clear loser is the vitality of American democracy, incidentally the very message Howard Beale conveys to his audience before his untimely death.
