Obama’s Funhouse of Mirrors

This article in the New York Times pretty much articulates how the current media circus works in valuing conflict over rational logic.

Key quote:

Were there 1,000 angry people with guns outside the town halls, or just one angry guy we saw 1,000 times? In all the noise and velocity of the coverage, it’s hard to know. But in the minds of many viewers — and TV hosts — the answer doesn’t matter. What matters is “there’s anger out there.”

That is the key point: the main power that the media currently holds is not speaking truth to power and relaying that to the masses. Currently, the media’s main power stems from its ability to shape and frame perception. If it is only one person shouting, it doesn’t matter if it’s being played over and over again a thousand times. It gives the perception that the anger is real out there.

However, most pundits’ prescreption and diagnosis of this event is still wildly misdiagnosed. Take, for example, the last statement in the article:

“I think that what you are seeing is some on-the-job learning,” said Lanny Davis, former White House counsel in the Clinton administration who now advises clients on media strategy. “He and his team, in spite of running a wonderful campaign, have never faced this kind of opposition now that there is blood in the water, and I think they are just beginning to figure out what they are up against.

I find this statement rather patronizing, treating Obama’s administration as if they are just naive rookies that are “on-the-job” learners. While there is no denying that every first-term president faces a major learning curve, the backlash that Obama is facing is truly something we’ve never seen before, in the sense that it’s unclear what, exactly, is being backlashed against, and even who, and how many, people are actually backlashing. In many ways, it seems that the Obama administration must constantly assess themselves within a carnival funhouse of mirrors. They continually must decide if they themselves are truly distorted, or if its the mirror itself (in this case, the media) which is making things look distorted. The real problem with this is that the American people are also using the same criteria to make their own evaluations as well. This leaves a lot of people confused, because we don’t even know anymore what it is that we’re supposed to be looking at, and can’t remember what a “normal” mirror is anymore.

I find this all very disturbing, because when a mass public is overwhelmingly confused and unclear about what a good leader actually is supposed to look like and accomplish, then people stop acknowleding them as authorities. That’s a real problem for a republic, whose system of ELECTED officials depends upon a common shared trust between the public and its representatives.

I personally am worried.

”

Hat Tip: Dad

Obama’s Health Care Strategy: The Horse Whisperer

John Dickerson’s article in Slate this week discusses Obama’s apparent “missteps” in the health care reform debate.

Key quote:

On health care, it’s clear that Obama is still working out his riff. He’s been talking about the subject for months and yet the number of people who disapprove of his handling of the issue continues to rise. In several polls, people now disapprove of his performance more than they approve. He has pushed the idea that health care reform will not increase the deficit—to the exclusion of other arguments he might make—and yet the message is not getting through. In a recent Quinnipiac University poll, voters did not believe, by a margin of 72 percent to 21 percent, that Obama will keep his promise to overhaul the health care system without adding to the deficit.

To me, this article is just another out of countless examples of supposed political “experts” underestimating Obama. Seriously, he has been underestimated so many times that it’s become laughable now. When are they going to get it?

Palin’s Resignation: Revised

Vanity Fair decides to brush up a bit on Palin’s masterpiece. Clearly they have no concept of true genius. Like everyone else, they keep trying to box her in.

I mean, who cares William Seward was a member of Andrew Johnson’s cabinet and not Abraham Lincoln’s? They just don’t get art.

Andrew Sullivan and the power of blogs

This article pretty much sums up my feelings about Andrew Sullivan’s role in advancing the blogosphere as the “New Frontier” in journalism. His Iranian coverage — especially the weekend immediately following the election — deserves a Pulitzer. More important than any award, though, is the way in which his blog has become a template in demonstrating the potential that this medium offers. A successful, highly trafficked blog has the ability to instantly broadcast information sent by its readers. It has the ability to respond on a personal level, while also creating room for its dissidents.

Most originally, however, it allows for a unique dialogue and conversation between reader and writer. In no other form of journalism — be it the news magazine essay, the front page story, or the televised live broadcast — can a reading public so intimately converse with, challenge, overturn, and agree with the writer. It is this bond which I feel truly defines the “blog” as a powerful medium in its own right.

Palin Rears Her Head

I have no words for this

Todd Purdum’s recent eye-opening Vanity Fair article has led to a spike in coverage regarding Sarah Palin’s performance on the 2008 trail. While I agree that most of this is old news and that we really shouldn’t be dwelling on it (at least no more so than making sure no one forgets how dreadful she was if she runs in 2012), I can’t help myself. Somewhat like Andrew Sullivan, I can’t help but have an irrational, totally over-the-top, virulent reaction to her. I can’t think of her in rational terms, or with even with a degree of cool, detached, amusement. I can do this with George W Bush, and even Dick Cheney. But Sarah Palin? No way.

I guess the reason is that to me, she represents absolutely everything wrong about the current state of American politics. Yet with the sheer disaster of the Bush administration, her existence became inevitable. She is literally the monster Rovian politics created: elevating personality over qualifications, life-story over competence, and ignorance as a sign of “small town values” over patriotism.

But really, what is left to be said about a GOVERNOR OF THE UNITED STATES who poses for Runner’s World with a photo shoot like this?!

Sanford Weirdness continues…

Ok, so now we have a report of the SLED (South Carolina Law Enforcement Division) car that Sanford took with him to be located in the Columbia, SC airport. But we also have a report of him being last seen in the Atlanta airport.

But the weirdest thing I think I’ve heard today is Mark Sawyer’s (the governor’s spokesperson) announcement to The State, South Carolina’s main newspaper:

Sawyer said Tuesday he would make Sanford’s passport public to shed light on the governor’s travels.

What the??! What good is showing his passport going to do, other than show that he was not out of the country the past few days? Has there been any suggestion that he has been? None that I’ve heard. His passport isn’t going to prove that he was hiking on the Appalachian trail or anything, unless what Sawyer is referring to is really Sanford’s National Park Stamp book.

Or, is Sawyer subtly suggesting to the press that Sanford has been overseas, such as in Iraq or something, and is going to reveal this as a surprise when he returns Wednesday?

I guess we’ll all have to wait and see when/if the governor returns…

Gov. Sanford’s Whereabouts: Mystery Solved?

Before I go into this, let me just say that I just now (late Monday night) have tuned into the question of South Carolina Gov. Sanford’s whereabouts. And the current newsflash is that the gov’s office has stated that he is hiking the Appalachian trail. There is not necessarily a reason to believe this is not true, and I really don’t like conspiracy theories.

But Talking Points Memo is right: there is something seriously wrong with the story regarding Gov. Sanford’s whereabouts.

As their report and South Carolina’s newspaper, The State, reports, the governor’s office reported late Monday night that Sanford “is hiking on the Appalachian Trail.” This statement, The State holds, purportedly ends “four days during which staff and state officials said they had not heard from him.”

All over the national news websites (CNN and Fox News), and local news websites (NBC 10 and CBS 7), headlines read “Mystery Solved” or “Missing Gov Found.” But there are way too many questions left unanswered to be able to say this.

The most pressing one, in my opinion, is the one that even the hiking statement itself makes unclear: is Gov. Sanford, as of Monday night, still hiking the trail, or was he hiking and is not anymore? If he is still hiking, when will he return?

Note the confusion of tenses in the following reports:

First sentence from The State:

S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford’s staff said late Monday that the governor is hiking on the Appalachian Trail, ending four days during which staff and state officials said they had not heard from him.

Then a few sentences down:

Joel Sawyer, the governor’s spokesman would not disclose where on the trail the governor was hiking, nor would he reveal whether Sanford was hiking alone.

Was hiking? Or is hiking? The State does not make it clear, nor does it seem that the Governor’s office has made it clear either.

But The State’s report seems crystal clear in comparison’s to CBS 7, a South Carolina local tv news website’s, report. The headline of their story reads:

Governor Mark Sanford is Taking a Hike…Literally

But the wording in their report then states:

But tonight, his office released a statement saying Sanford was “hiking the Appalachian Trail”.

Again, what’s with the tense change between “is” and “was?” And note that the CBS 7 report doesn’t actually put the word “was” in quotations. That means it is CBS’s assertion — not necessarily the governor’s office’s assertion — that he “was” hiking.

All of this may seem to be pure grammatical nitpicking on my part, but really this discrepancy only points to the larger questions at hand, ones that these reporters SHOULD be asking:

1) It took several hours for the governor’s office to inform the press that the governor is/was on the Applachian trail. Was this information already known, but merely not disclosed to the public, or was this information recently acquired? If it was recently acquired, then how and by whom? Was it acquired by actually making contact with the governor himself?

2) Basic question: WHEN is the exact last time that the governor himself has been in contact with his office? And WHO was the last person to speak to him since news regarding his whereabouts have been disclosed?

3) Even simpler question: When will the governor be returning to his duties?

Until these almost ridiculously simple questions are answered, or until at least we have visual evidence of Sanford, then there is absolutely no way that any legitimate news source can say that Governor Sanford’s whereabouts are “known.”

I’m really just utterly disgusted with the MSM’s lazy and sloppy headlining/investigating of this story.

Fox News and the Phantom of Knowledge

The complete farce of Fox News is revealed in their hyperlink positing this question:

YOU DECIDE: Did the CIA Interrogations Work?

The CIA is under fire for interrogation tactics used after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. But did the interrogations deliver results and keep Americans safe? YOU DECIDE!

Now, let’s look at this logically, shall we?

The question, “did the interrogations deliver results?” is not the problem. The problem is in the command “YOU DECIDE.”

The interrogations either DID or DID NOT deliver results. There’s no “You decide” about it. It’s like asking, “Was George Washington the first president of the United States? YOU DECIDE.”

Ok, Fox News might find even that question a little iffy since they’re on this whole “secessionist” kick, so let’s put it another way:

“Is this statement phrased in the form of a question?” YOU DECIDE!

By obscuring verifiable truth under the guise of public opinion, Fox News relinquishes any responsibility it has to its viewership to report actual information. They therefore can afford to politicize even the most mundane and non-political event that occurs. For example, the factually verifiable story:

“President Obama shook hands with President Chavez today.”

But this is a boring story bound not to engage anyone.

So they turn into this:

“President Obama shook hands with the controversial figure Hugo Chavez, who called former President Bush an ‘ignoramous.’ Should he have done this? YOU DECIDE.”

By thrusting a past event – “he has done this” into the the conditional tense — “should he have done this?” — relegates absolutely every report into the realm of scrutiny.

But, you might argue, that seems fair to question the actions of a President. We’re all supposed to scrutinize things the President does and does not do.

Fine. Perhaps you’re right. But if it’s news, then that must mean there are SOME things that are “purely” reported on, correct? Such as “An earthquake occurred in San Francisco today.” How might such a statement be called into scrutiny?

So in order to maintain the ruse that they are, indeed, a news organization, they must occasionally appear as if they are actually reporting news.

But even this process becomes muddied with Fox News.

In effect what happens is that Fox News creates “phantoms of knowledge” — they do not report news; instead, they report what is being reported. They twice remove themselves from the “actual” story. This occurs through rhetorically distancing a fact from the report.

One device occurs this way:

Justifiable fact:
Gravity makes things fall down.

Fox News version:
“Sir Isaac Newton today stated that gravity makes things fall down.”

Here what we have is a report of a claim to truth — not truth itself. This makes Fox News merely the dispenser of the report — it does not claim to acknowledge that gravity does, indeed, make things fall down.

So, in real life, this is how Fox News augments the facts:

Fact:
Sea Levels are Rising.

Fox News Report:
“Today a group of scientists claimed in a report that sea levels are rising.”

By marginalizing the scientific community — which has reached a consensus on this point — to a “group” of scientists, they weaken the veracity of the statement. Furthermore, the word “claim” insinuates that the truthfulness of the statement has yet to be verified.

Thus, again, Fox News does not report facts — it only reports what others purport to be factual. This is phantom news-making.

None of what I’m saying is really new. Countless blogs (the most prolific being Media Matters) have devoted attention to their tactics. Columnists and critics have noticed that the Bush administration largely began turning to a more post-modern version of “truth” (mainly asserting that there is no truth) ever since 2003. (EJ Dionne’s 2005 article in particular is worth reading). What remains frustrating is that such tactics are no longer used solely by Fox News. Both MSNBC, ABC news, and CNN have increasingly and in some regards almost totally have followed in Fox News’s footsteps. Additionally, there seemed to be some understanding in the past of what stories were admittedly “too serious” to really call truth into question. This is a line that is being erased by the day.

I feel it’s largely going to get worse before it gets better. And I feel that something major would have to happen before any of these “news” organizations tone down their rhetorical devices of “truth.” I just fear what that will be, and what will happen to the public’s general level of being informed.