Brad Warthen's Blog

Remembering 'Breaking the News'

Back in the first comment on this post, Lee mentioned James Fallows' excellent book, Breaking the News: The News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy -- which, as it happens, I actually reviewed for this newspaper when it came out.

Here's what I wrote, back in 1996:

THE STATE
MEDIA EXAMINES ITSELF<
Published on: 02/25/1996
Section: TEMPO
Edition: FINAL
Page: F6
Reviewed by Brad Warthen
Memo: Brad Warthen is an associate editor of The State's editorial page.


BREAKING THE NEWS: How the Media Undermine American Democracy

By James Fallows
Pantheon, 296 pages, $23

    So you think the news media are dragging the country down with their negativity and their failure to put things in perspective?
    So join the club. A lot of us on the inside of this alleged profession agree. James Fallows, Washington editor of The Atlantic Monthly, is one. Fallows' saving grace is that he's written this book explaining exactly what is wrong and why it matters.
    The problem has to do with perverse cognitive habits that journalists embrace as normal, but which cause them to portray public life in ways that make it hard for readers and viewers to engage it constructively.
    For instance: ``Step by step, mainstream journalism has fallen into the habit of portraying public life as a race to the bottom, in which one group of conniving, insincere politicians ceaselessly tries to outmaneuver another.'' Among journalists, casting a jaded eye upon anything a politician does is seen as being ``professional.'' We tend to think of it as healthy skepticism. But there is nothing healthy about it.
    In fact, ``By choosing to present public life as a contest among scheming political leaders, all of whom the public should view with suspicion, the news media helps bring about that very result.''
    That's exactly what has happened. As a groundbreaking poll discovered last year, the public is now far more cynical about politics and government than are journalists, who are more likely to believe that our political system is sound, and that citizens can make a difference. In other words, the people believe the system is just as bad as we've painted it, and we know better.
    There are excellent examples in this book illustrating the profound disconnect between journalists and sensible people.
    One of the best-documented is the journalists' penchant for reducing everything -- every issue, every speech, every policy initiative, every human gesture by a politician -- to what it means in terms of the next election. If a politician tries to do something about starving children, we immediately wonder aloud what this means in terms of the way he's trying to position himself in New Hampshire.
    If Fallows didn't do anything else in this book, I would praise him to the skies for drawing so clearly the connection between the way we cover politics and the way we cover sports -- which is to say, in virtually the same manner. Journalists tend to see everything as a contest, which one side must win and the other must lose. This, of course, leaves no room for the kind of consensus-building that solves problems in the real world.
    Politics and government matter, but modern journalism has done much to cause the public to despair of it ever meaning anything good.
    The sins that Fallows details in this book are examined in a manner that shows clearly ``how they affect the future prospects of every American by distorting the processes by which we choose our leaders and resolve our public problems.''
    Unlike most modern journalism, this book does not merely wallow in unrelieved despair. The author writes encouragingly of such things as the ``public journalism'' movement, through which a number of far-sighted, community-oriented journalists (you'll note that few of them are in Washington or New York) have started accepting responsibility for fixing the problem, starting with themselves.
    Fallows draws an interesting connection between the way the U.S. military examined and healed itself after Vietnam, and the way journalists can become their own best physicians. It won't be easy, but it can be done -- we just have to unlearn about half of the nonsense that got crammed into our heads in journalism school.
    Fallows has correctly diagnosed what's wrong with American journalism. If you want to know why you ought to be mad at the media, read this book. If everybody would read it (journalists should read it twice), we might find ourselves on the way to a cure.

The awful irony is that this was just when things were starting to get much worse, what with 24/7 shouting heads on cable TV and the blogosphere yet to come. The pointless, yammering, conflict for its own sake is SO much worse now -- and it's one of the things I struggle with constantly here on the blog, along with those of you who still hope for a civil town square in which to discuss issues -- that when I look back on when that review was written, it's almost like a lost age of innocence....

Parties playing nice

Y'all know how I'm always trashing the parties, but when they do something even halfway nice, I do notice. And I was struck by the statement that DNC Chair Tim Kaine put out about Michael Steele becoming his opposite number:

My congratulations to Michael Steele on his election as chairman of the Republican National Committee.  Together, we have the honor of leading our respective Parties during one of the most important periods in our country’s history.   I look forward to working with Chairman Steele as we set out to put partisanship and the politics of the past aside to get our economy working again.  The American people have sent a clear message that the challenges we face are too great for us to get bogged down by outmoded ideological divides. They have challenged us to work together to find practical solutions that will put this country back on the right track. President Obama and the Democratic Party are answering that challenge, and I hope Chairman Steele will join us.

That might not sound like much, but normally the parties don't issue statements about their opposition that it not nasty or catty or worse. So this was an improvement. Yeah, I know -- his definition of "putting partisanship aside" means that he wants Mr. Steele to do what the Democrats want. So you can't call this message bipartisan in a strict sense.

But he put it in an unusually nice way, and that's something. Not one slash of the claws. No, if your Aunt Emily sent out a note like this it wouldn't be especially nice, because she's nice all the time. But this is progress for the parties. And we praise children when they take those first baby steps...

Excuse me for getting all earnest, but how can we interact more meaningfully here?

And yes, I mean "earnest" and not "Ernest" like in my last post, although if you'd like you can attribute the seriousness of my message here to the influence of my serious new notebook.

Anyway, I wrote the following as a followup comment on my otherwise silly, fun post on Tina Fey, and it occurred to me I should elevate it to a separate post and see if we can get a good dialogue going on the subject here. Rather than rewrite it, I repeat myself:

Funny thing is, I used to not like Tina Fey -- or Jimmy Fallon, or, going way back before them, Dennis Miller -- in their Weekend Update days.

As y'all know, I like to have fun and kid around, but I do take the news and the issues of the day seriously, and at some point I get turned off by people who day in and day out sneer and make jokes of serious issues. I mean, let's have fun and kid around, but when one's entire diet of commentary consists of such junk food, and it's all about mocking and never taking anything seriously, I think it has a corrosive effect on society. Taken at it's extreme, I think it has helped raise a generation that has trouble respecting anyone and anything in politics. The constant drip, drip of smarmy satire adds to all the partisan attack politics and tactics of personal destruction to prevent us from coming together to solve the problems we have in common -- which is what representative democracy can be all about.

Needless to say, I have NO appreciation for Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. And while I enjoyed meeting and kidding around with Stephen Colbert (see video), I can't get into his shtick, either.

But even though the Palin gag was pretty hard-hitting satire, it was so enjoyable that it caused me to have a soft spot for Tina I didn't have before.

I should also mention that I revised my opinion of Dennis Miller just from the couple of brief spots I've done on his radio show. I had always thought of him as just too much of a wise guy, too impressed with his own snarky cleverness, to be borne. But he's actually deeper than that, and pleasant to talk to.

Of course, this is just a corollary to something I've found about life -- almost anyone is a more likable, admirable person once you get past the shorthand, bumper-sticker version of that person. To know a person is to appreciate him or her more. Maybe this sounds trite, but in our 24/7 headline news/blog world, we increasingly go by the bumper sticker, and don't get into people deeply enough to appreciate them.

And just to get WAY philosophical on you.... One of my great disappointments with this blog is that I had hoped, by having this forum for going way beyond what I'm able to say and explore in the paper, I could forge some avenues where I could have more meaningful exchanges with my readers and fellow citizens about the important issues of the day -- and the people who are important players in those issues.

Unfortunately, the resistance to that is just tremendous. So much of what passes for dialogue here remains on the superficial, partisan, shorthand, bumper-sticker simplistic level. I try to say something to provoke thought, and somebody gives some standard, boilerplate ideological response, and someone else shouts the established bumper-sticker counter to THAT, and off we go on the kind of pointless partisan merry-go-round that you can read or hear anywhere in the blogosphere or on 24/7 talking head "news." And what is the point in that?

I draw hope from the fact that occasionally, we get to the point where some actual,  mutually respectful dialogue occurs between people who HAVE gotten to know each other beyond the surface here. I see this particularly with Phillip and Herb and Karen and a handful of others -- and in the past (although, unfortunately, not so much lately) from you, Randy. I even get an encouraging word now and then from bud or Doug.

I just wish I knew how to build on that. I'm open to suggestions.

Maybe I need to make this a separate post...

... which I just did.

How about it? Do you see any way we can start having conversations here that matter?

The Obama-McCain meeting

Not a lot to emerge from the president-elect's meeting with John McCain (and Lindsey Graham and Rahm Emanuel) today, which is to be expected. Here's the closest thing to substance I've seen, from their joint communique:

We hope to work together in the days and months ahead on critical challenges like solving our financial crisis, creating a new energy economy, and protecting our nation’s security.

Of those items, seems to me the greatest potential for collaboration would be on energy. (But I would think that, wouldn't I?)

Here's a scene-setter from the NYT politics blog:

Senator John McCain and President-elect Barack Obama are sitting down together now and metaphorically smoking a peace pipe in their first face-to-face session since the bruising campaign.

The two are meeting at Mr. Obama’s transition headquarters at a federal building in Chicago, where they just posed for the cameras.

The meeting space has a stagey look, in front of the kind of thick royal blue curtain you see in an auditorium, not the usual campaign-rigged blue backdrop. Flags are strewn throughout, with one planted between the two principals, who are sitting in yellow, Oval-Office-like chairs.

To their sides are their wingmen, Rahm Emanuel on Mr. Obama’s left and Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina on Mr. McCain’s right.

They’re all looking jolly (Mr. Obama and Mr. Emanual the jolliest), and we’ll soon get a read-out on the discussion.

The Obama team is hoping they can smooth any ruffled feathers and build an alliance with the old John McCain — not the one whom the Obama camp called “erratic” during the presidential campaign but the self-styled “maverick” who worked across party lines for various causes that Mr. Obama wants to advance — global warming, immigration, earmark spending among them.

In the brief moment before the cameras, Mr. Obama said: “We’re going to have a good conversation about how we can do some work together to fix up the country, and also to offer thanks to Senator McCain for the outstanding service he’s already rendered.”

Mr. McCain was asked whether he would help Mr. Obama with his administration.

“Obviously,” he said.

Those pesky reporters tried to shout out other queries, like about a possible bail-out for the auto industry, but the pool report says they were “shouted down by the pool sherpas,” and that “Mr. Obama finally said with a smile, ‘You’re incorrigible.’”

The last in-person meeting between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain took place more than a month ago, at the third and final presidential debate at Hofstra, remembered chiefly as the coming-out party for Joe the Plumber.

Updated | 2:12 p.m.: A joint statement was released from President-elect Barack Obama and Senator John McCain:

“At this defining moment in history, we believe that Americans of all parties want and need their leaders to come together and change the bad habits of Washington so that we can solve the common and urgent challenges of our time. It is in this spirit that we had a productive conversation today about the need to launch a new era of reform where we take on government waste and bitter partisanship in Washington in order to restore trust in government, and bring back prosperity and opportunity for every hardworking American family. We hope to work together in the days and months ahead on critical challenges like solving our financial crisis, creating a new energy economy, and protecting our nation’s security.”

Beyond that, here are versions of the story from:

• The Associated Press (on thestate.com)
• The Chicago Tribune
• The Wall Street Journal (really just an update of their story from this morning's paper)
• The New York Times

Whither the blog?

Seems like this comment I put on this comment string is worth a separate post, since I'm looking for feedback:

Above we have 32 comments. Seventeen of them are by or about Lee Muller (10 by him, including the first and the last; seven about him.)

That means the majority of comments are not about the subject at hand. The subject at hand, of course, is my effort to elevate public discourse above the level of polarization and pointless shouting.

I'd like to thank Harry, Karen, Phillip, Bart and, eventually bud (once he decided not to "harp on the past") for engaging the topic positively, and Randy and David for at least engaging the topic.

Anyone have any suggestions as to what do do with the fact that most of the string was occupied with polarizing distractions? This is a serious question, because now that the election is over I'm evaluating how much energy to put into the blog, given that we are so short-handed and I'm so harried these days.

When I started this blog, I had a staff of six full-time people (including four associate editors) and one part-timer to write for, edit and produce the editorial pages. And even then it was extremely difficult to squeeze out the time from a 24-hour day to blog. Now I have three full-timers (down to two associate editors) and one part-timer in the editorial department. Finding time for the blog long ago reached the point where most people would say "impossible."

My Sunday column spoke directly to why I do this blog. It's about carving out a place that is an alternative to most of the hyperpartisan blogosphere, which reflects the style of nondiscourse framed by the parties, the advocacy groups and the shouting-head television "news." A place where people can interact constructively, and even listen to each other.

I deeply appreciate those of you who try to have a constructive conversation in spite of all the shouters in the room. Unfortunately, there are many, many people of good will who simply won't try that hard.

Anyway, anybody have any constructive suggestions for going forward?

Of course, the very first comment I get it likely to be from Lee. But after that, I'd very much appreciate some relevant feedback from the rest of you.

A Brad's Blog primer

Noticing that this recent post had attracted some first-time-readers, I thought I'd greet them and give them a quick orientation. And the message I wrote sort of said some stuff that it might be good to remind everybody of occasionally. So I hereby elevate that quick primer to separate-post status:

Marie, Joshua, thanks for joining us. Sorry you're disappointed, Joshua, but bear with us. And Marie, what part of Tampa are you from? I went to high school for two years there. Robinson High. A long, long time ago.

It occurs to me to give y'all a quick primer on what we're about here. I'm the editorial page editor of South Carolina's largest newspaper. We (the newspaper's editorial board) endorsed John McCain in the GOP primary, and Barack Obama in the Democratic -- and had the happy satisfaction of seeing both of our candidates win.

I think the possibility of an Obama-McCain contest in the fall will be the closest thing to a no-lose situation that I've seen in my adult lifetime -- and I first voted in 1972.

This doesn't mean being blind to either candidate's faults. I'm turned off by McCain's pandering on gas taxes, and Obama has a problem with Mr. Wright -- no wishing that away.

Sometime folks come here and have trouble getting their bearings, trying to decide whether this blog goes to the right or the left. Neither. I'm the founder of the UnParty, sometimes also known as the Energy Party -- depending on the subject at hand. I've also been known to call it the Grownup Party. I'm basically fed up with both the Democrats and the Republicans, although I like some individuals in both parties.

Anyway, welcome.

I should add this: I try, I really try, to encourage a certain level of civility around here. I also try to discourage pointless, cliche-ridden partisan back-and-forth slogan-chanting of the sort you can get out on your ordinary, run-of-the-mill blogs.

But I've been pretty laissez-faire about it lately, and it seemed like time to crack heads. So I deleted a couple of, shall we way, less-than-constructive comments back on this post, and banned the posters. Just so y'all know. One was obviously beyond the pale (both the "N" word and the "F" word crowded into a surprisingly short, and distressingly unoriginal, composition), and the other was someone who had demonstrated time and again that he was not here in good faith.

The great thing is that I haven't had to do that in awhile. I'm not sure whether that's because y'all have all become so profound and high-minded, or I've just gotten more callous. Anyway, thanks for what most of y'all do.

One last thing -- to get full value out of the blog, you've gotta follow the links...

In Hillary's defense, it DOES work...

When it comes to my preference for Barack Obama in the contest for the Democratic nomination, I refuse to take a back seat to those worthies on the editorial board of The New York Times. However, I must protest that their urgent yearning for Hope and Change caused them to ignore rather obvious realities earlier this week:

    The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
    Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

When you say "Voters are getting tired of it," you mean you are getting tired of it, as am I. (Sure, you can say Obama still leads nationally poll, but "national" doesn't count until November, and even then it's state by state.) And yes, it's demeaning, but this is politics, ya know.

And you've gotta hand it to the lady: It does work. It certainly did on Tuesday, anyway.

He DID wag his finger -- he actually DID!

You folks who watch TV probably already knew this, but Bill Clinton actually did wag his finger at us in an attempt at morally-superior, above-the-fray admonishment. Here's the video.

My mistake was in thinking the Times' "finger-wagging" reference was to the radio interview, which means I read it too fast the first time. This was in response to the radio interview. Or in response to the response -- whatever.

Yeah, you can miss stuff, not watching TV. But it's usually not anything worth seeing... it's mostly just tit-for-tat, tat-for-tit, nonsense feeding upon itself.

You know, if Bill keeps this up, I'm going to have to give him his own category here on the blog...

'Hillary-style attacks'

We at the UnParty continue to be fascinated at the ways in which party-line thinking warps perception...

You may have noticed that Democrats talk ominously and often about the coming "Republican attacks." There is much mumbling about "Swiftboating" and "Karl Rove," and other things that to bear no rational relationship to the fact that the Democratic nominee will be facing John McCain in the fall.

As is often the case with ideological mythology, almost anything is justified in the cause of warding off these dread calamities that lie ahead. Hillary Clinton uses the belief that such atrocities are on the way as an excuse to pound Barack Obama with various bludgeons that the wicked GOPpers will certainly hit him with sooner or later. The message here is that those monsters on the right have already thrown everything they have at HER ("having now gone through 16 years of being on the receiving end of what the Republican Party dishes out"), thereby giving her immunity or something. (I think you have to believe in the mythology to follow the reasoning.)

In the black-and-white world that gives rise to such thinking, there is no difference between Karl Rove and John McCain. Anyone who consents to be called a Republican is equally evil, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln. That McCain, who has been a victim of such excesses as the Democrats fear, might be different does not enter into the equation.

Will groups on the Right do unconscionable things against the Democratic nominee in the Fall? You betcha, just as MoveOn.org and its ilk will do to the Republican -- a fact that purveyors of the Coming Debacle seem to overlook. What each side will do in the name of ideology will be reprehensible, as always -- that's why I'm an UnParty man. Sadly, I don't expect much from Democrats and Republicans.

But sometimes, it just gets beyond ridiculous, such as when Joe Klein refers to "the Republican-style attacks that Hillary Clinton has been previewing..."

No, Joe. This is not a preview; this is real life, happening in real time. And it's Hillary doing it. These are, quite obviously and demonstrably, "Hillary-style" attacks. Or perhaps we should say, "Stephanopoulos-style attacks." Here's a sample, from Wednesday night's debate:

And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died. So it is -- you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about. And I have no doubt -- I know Senator Obama's a good man and I respect him greatly but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising.

And it goes to this larger set of concerns about, you know, how we are going to run against John McCain. You know, I wish the Republicans would apologize for the disaster of the Bush-Cheney years and not run anybody, just say that it's time for the Democrats to go back into the White House. (Laughter, applause.)

Unfortunately, they don't seem to be willing to do that. So we know that they're going to be out there, full force. And you know, I've been in this arena for a long time. I have a lot of baggage, and everybody has rummaged through it for years. (Laughter.) And so therefore, I have, you know, an opportunity to come to this campaign with a very strong conviction and feeling that I will be able to withstand whatever the Republican sends our way.

Not the SHE would say such things about Obama, he being such a good man, but you just can't trust those damned Republicans. Folks, how simple do you have to be to miss the fact that SHE JUST SAID THESE THINGS?

What's really pathetic is that they've got Obama buying into this line, and I would expect him to know better. Klein quotes Obama as saying, "That [debate] was the rollout of the Republican campaign against me in November..."

No, it was the real thing, happening in April, and it was Democrats doing it. Can't you see that? Folks, this is why I trash parties all the time -- they turn our brains to oatmeal.

You want to see a "Republican-style attack?" OK, here's a real-life one that came in today:

Wednesday's Democratic debate provided insight into Barack Obama's positions on key foreign policy issues. As president he says he would immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq- even if he were strongly advised against this by our nation's top military commanders. He would also hold direct talks with the Iranian regime- a regime that does not recognize Israel and is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Iran's president has even called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." 

During the debate, Barack Obama once again refused to condemn former President Jimmy Carter- who publicly supports Obama- for holding talks with the Hamas terrorist group, a group supported financially, politically and military by Iran.

Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders. Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America."

We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

John McCain's foreign policy provides a stark contrast to the policies of Barack Obama. As president, John McCain will provide the leadership we need to win the war against Islamic extremists. We need your help today to reach out to Americans across the country to spread the message of John McCain's plan for your national security. Please follow this link to make a financial contribution to our campaign today.

Yep, it's another one of those McCain fund-raising e-mails I've been complaining about lately. It's pretty critical, all right, but you'll note that it's built around policy differences. Nothing about bitter xenophobia in Middle America, or Bill Ayres, or Jeremiah Wright. And you know, McCain had to go out of his way to find something in that debate to comment on other than those things, since most of the debate centered on them.

That doesn't mean McCain won't point to the fact that he doesn't see average Americans as bitter; in fact I think he already has. But now, he declines an obvious chance to join Hillary in piling on.

I just thought maybe somebody should point that out.

A black, Jewish Texan walks into a police station...

... and ends up cleaning up the whole town.

A reader sent me a link to this article that reminds us of the accomplishments of Reuben Greenberg, who had such a distinguished career as police chief in Charleston. As we mull over just how big a mess the Columbia police department is in these days, and view the latest Highway Patrol video, we might long for such a top cop:

Reuben Greenberg was undoubtedly the ultimate "man bites dog" story, for what could be more unlikely than a black, observant Jew from Texas transforming a city in the heart of the Confederacy from a crime-ridden center of corruption to a uniquely well-managed place that cracked down on crime at the same time it virtually eliminated police brutality -- and even rudeness? Greenberg told his cops that their job was not to punish (that was up to the courts), but to make arrests, and in order to do that they had to be on good terms with the citizens. Thus, he said early on in his memorable tenure, he would defend a policeman for using "excessive force" to make an arrest, but he would fire anyone who used abusive language with a citizen.