It’s the future, stupid

It’s the future, stupid

: Howard Kurtz and a few folks he quotes finally start calling media on paying attention to mudslinging instead of what really matters: our future as a nation.

I think we will look back on coverage of this campaign with all the pride of our pre-9/11 Condit and shark coverage. Says Kurtz (my itals):

Is absolutely everything fair game for the press these days?

From the contours of John Kerry’s war wounds to George Bush’s failure to take a National Guard physical to a book’s disputed allegations of drug use at Camp David, the media seem consumed these days with excavating the down-and-dirty past.

All too often the details are murky, the evidence secondhand, the documents doubted, the arguments driven by high-decibel partisanship….

If journalists devoted the same investigative energy to the candidates’ efforts to bolster Medicare and Social Security or deal with the mess in Iraq — as opposed to precisely what happened on the Bay Hap River in 1969 — perhaps more people might find campaign coverage compelling. …

“Here the campaign is dealing with terrorism and war, but we’re still capable of losing ourself in matters 35 years old that belong on ‘Jeopardy!’ or ‘Trivial Pursuit,’ ” says Frank Sesno, a George Mason University professor and former CNN anchor. While he blames Kerry in part for putting Vietnam at the center of his campaign, Sesno sees an “almost ridiculous contrast” between the country’s problems and the media’s obsession with old controversies.

I’ll let you decide whether the same is true of blogs. Are blogs raising the standards of media or lowering themselves to media’s standards?

As we’ve discussed here before, all this is often cloaked under the tattered blanket of “character,” in an effort to make mud matter. Today’s free Wall Street Journal link looks at coverage of “character” in the campaign:

A bruising fight over “character” has taken center stage in a presidential campaign that once seemed it would hinge more on Iraq, terrorism and the economy.

Character is the crux of the battle over the Vietnam-era behavior of President Bush and John Kerry, as well as the prism increasingly used by both campaigns to refract the debate over current issues such as taxes and Medicare.

The Democratic National Committee has fanned questions in recent days about President Bush’s National Guard service because “the issues about the president’s military service go to his credibility and his character,” said party Chairman Terry McAuliffe in a weekend interview. “If you lie about your military record, you lie about creating jobs. You lie about the deficit. You lie about fully funding education. You lie about a real prescription-drug benefit.”

Similarly, the Bush-friendly Vietnam veterans who challenged Mr. Kerry’s combat heroics and postwar protests say their push has accomplished their broader purpose of sowing doubts about Mr. Kerry’s integrity. “We have…touched off a national debate concerning John Kerry’s character and leadership ability,” said Roy Hoffmann, founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, in a statement Friday….

The character tilt to the campaign so far has helped Mr. Bush and could continue to give him an edge if it remains the dominant theme through the fall. Republicans have been more persistent with personal attacks against Mr. Kerry than Democrats have been against Mr. Bush, and polls show Mr. Kerry’s negative ratings rising more sharply than Mr. Bush’s. While Democrats vow to fight back, it is harder to change public perceptions of an incumbent president than a lesser-known challenger.

Democrats also risk taking the focus off the economy, health care, and Iraq, where polls show voters still have serious concerns about Mr. Bush’s record. A character debate “is clearly much more effective for Bush because it takes him away from the issues,” says Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, which analyzes public opinion. “Kerry has to talk about how bad conditions are.

Everybody’s guilty this season.

Everybody has mud on their hands.

And a year from now, we’ll see some commission wonder why we as a nation didn’t pay attention to terrorism… or the health-care crisis… or education…. or the economy…. It’s because we couldn’t see through the mud on our glasses.

: Here is my post about character and the campaign.

34 responses to “It’s the future, stupid”

  1. old gal Avatar

    The blogs are lowering to the big media standards. Not all, thank God. We have yours but the swifties and now rathergate are getting far too much attention from some of the big popular blogs. Booooring!

  2. old gal Avatar

    The blogs are lowering to the big media standards. Not all, thank God. We have yours but the swifties and now rathergate are getting far too much attention from some of the big popular blogs. Booooring!

  3. Brett Avatar

    Jeff,
    Do you want to lead off then by using a few pixel spaces dedicated to asking a question about an issue, as happened with health care? Say, since you mention it, terrorism? Iraq? Education?
    Or is mud the topic of conversation?
    You know, the more we talk about mud, the more mud remains the focus.

  4. Mike Avatar

    Have other blogs really been slinging mud? Or are they holding the MSM to the standard of fair journalism that is supposed to be the cornerstone of their existence?
    As has been stated by commenters here over and over again, the latest blog obsession is not about slinging mud, it’s about outing and fact-checking a biased, unfair, amd most likely false MSM report designed to smear GWB. Which is one of the reasons blogs were started, so really are they slinging mud?

  5. Ric Locke Avatar

    Two things:
    First, debate over the issues sometimes (mostly?) seems futile. The difference between actual policies in office and proposed policies during campaigns is so large as to render the debate moot.
    But that’s minor. The larger thing is, how can we have a debate when the channel(s) that debate is conducted over are corrupt? That’s the debate that’s going on now, and it’s fluid, heated — and extremely important.
    Regards,
    Ric Locke

  6. HE Avatar

    Does this include Stern? I read that he had an open forum at his website to discuss the election; however Howie cdn’t take the pro Bush posters so he shut it down. He’s been slinging mud for well over a year now. When can we expect your excoriation of him?

  7. Kory Avatar

    Ah, the golden mirage. We as a nation must talk about the ‘real issues’. Right up there with ‘journalistic fairness’.
    What ‘real issues’ are not getting enough attention? Terrorism and foreign policy are quite clear. Bush favors aggressive offense against real and perceived threats even if it means alienating allies. Kerry favors more consultation with allies, and a more defensive posture toward security. How either man would precisely react in a future crisis or to future events is unknown. Everything else is just smoke and endless repetition.
    Economy, healthcare, and jobs? Largely outside the control of Washington. I know that the press and writers think that tax and spending policies mean everything, but they don’t. The advance of technology, customer needs and demands, and competition are all infinitely more important than fretting about whether the government raises or lowers the tax rate a couple of percent, or subsidizes a few hundred dollars of health care costs.
    The truth is that ‘the real issues’ are usually just as shallow as the mudslinging. The center of the world is not Washington, DC nor policies that come from there. The real future is decided in 300 million Americans homes, families, churches, businesses, and in their creativity and character.
    Spending days and weeks debating healthcare or terrorism is just as overexposed, boring, and futile as whether typewriter fonts were available in 1973.

  8. Tom Grey - Liberty Dad Avatar

    There’s also the obvious problem that both Bush and Kerry are promising to spend a LOT of Other People’s Money, on You, the voter, whoever you are. Isn’t that nice? Of course, your money will be spent on others; and there’s waste, etc…
    Jeff, it’s not really just mud. It’s morals. Who is morally superior? Who’s policy is morally superior? Facts don’t answer this question, nor does science, but the whole goodness of America is based on trying to do the right thing, the good thing, the morally superior thing.
    What is the morally superior policy for Iraq?
    Which was morally superior in Vietnam — More War or Peace (and Genocide)?
    The Moral Superiority War is what the “mud” is about — but you, and the Leftist press, don’t want to openly discuss the real issue.
    How about YOUR view of the two Vietnam War moralities, and their relationship to Iraq?

  9. alan Avatar

    The media is getting this stuff from the campaigns and their surrogates. The media reports what they want reported. Blame them

  10. Reid Avatar

    Call me stupid for wanting to read what the media has to say, but since you mention “blog standards,” a *link* to Kurtz’s piece would have been nice to go with all those quotes.

  11. C_Bennett Avatar

    There is something different about this blog that I haven’t been able to quite understand, myself, but I think this post on “no more mud” helped me. Mr. Jarvis is still a bit more an editor than a reporter: he’s fine on reporting until he feels the blogosphere is going in an unfortunate direction, at which time he suspends reporting and starts instructuing bloggers/media/government/agencies where they should focus their attention. While others are reporting on the documents or the records on Cambodia, Mr. Jarvis is up in front of the class yelling about mud/oink-oink/mud on our hands. It’s overbearing.
    Take the lead, Mr. Jarvis — discussions on health care, on educations, on crime. Go for it: no one is stopping you; plenty of blogs do (the big picture is great at this — and while they continue putting up the economic numbers, this blog keeps yelling at everyone to focus on Stern, don’t focus on Cambodia, do focus on the SEC, don’t focus on forged docs, do focus on Iraq bloggers, don’t focus on …).
    But I’m guessing it isn’t enough that this blog focuses on the real issues and isn’t oinking — what riles this blog is what OTHER blogs are doing. There is not yet an editor of the blogosphere that clears posts on appropriate content, newsworthiness or redundancy — if there ever is, it isn’t hard to guess who feels equal to the task.

  12. Brett Avatar

    “We’re all going to have to rethink how we deal with the Internet. As exciting as these new developments are, there are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function.” (Hillary Clinton, Reuters – February 11, 1998)
    “I am dumbfounded that there hasn’t been a crackdown with the libel and slander laws on some of these would-be writers and reporters on the Internet. I expect that to develop in the fairly near future.” (Walter Cronkite, Reuters – August 16, 2004)

  13. sbw Avatar

    Issues are important to talk about, but that discussion happens independent of campaigns.
    Campaigns center on who is more likely to move the country in your perceived “sensible direction.” It boils down to whom do you trust — which is why so much of the opposition seems to try to undercut trust.
    Our job, outside particular political campaigns, is to have those issue discussions to encourage developing conventional wisdom about what constitutes sensible policy that can later be adopted by mainstream campaigns.

  14. Cool Tester Avatar
    Cool Tester

    “We’re all going to have to rethink how we deal with the Internet. As exciting as these new developments are, there are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function.” (Hillary Clinton, Reuters – February 11, 1998)
    Yeah, this is typical elitism. You see it a lot with college profs usually, but it’s creeped throughout liberalism these days. The assumption is that there needs to be this grand gatekeeper to make sure everything is “okay,” as if the common man and woman are not capable of saying anything intelligent. It needs to be “verified” first or it’s not credible. Whatever.
    In terms of mud slinging, in a number of cases one man’s mud slinging is another man’s constructive criticism. There are many blogs who are examining the TANG documents for errors. Some say this is pointless as the real issue is that Bush was AWOL. Others say that it is important because the Bush AWOL issue is based off of documents that may be forged. I work with some very liberal people, and their tendency is to react negatively to any sort of criticism. If you criticize Kerry, you’re mud slinging. No doubt you will find similar views on the right.
    Something else to mention: there is nothing new about mud slinging. It has been in existence throughout the history of politics. Journalism has not suddenly sunk to a new low, it has always behaved in such a fashion. If anything, I think it has improved here in the information age as it is simple for people to communicate with others about the facts and issues at hand. Blogs have contributed to that in a big way.

  15. Richard Bennett Avatar

    Was Watergate nothing but mudslinging?

  16. Brett Avatar

    Mud = erosion of trust… great point, sbw.
    To discuss issues, we have to ask:
    What’s the plan?
    Is the plan feasible?
    Is the current environment conducive to the plan?
    Is the team/leader behind the plan capable?
    If you want to win the debate, you have to attack the opposition’s intent on any of these points.
    In a soundbite culture, attacking the team/leader behind the plan is easier. The first three require more homework and a longer explanation.
    Hence, mud.

  17. countertop Avatar

    Well, I certainly had a couple of posts on the subject, but for the last two weeks the overwhelming majority of my posting has focused on the veracity (or lack thereof) of the media in reporting on the end of the so called “assault weapons” ban.
    Even so, I still managed a number of posts examining real policy issues we, as citizens, continue to face, including
    Terrorism, Kyoto and climate change, New Jersey’s continuing gubnatorial problems, loss of common sense by public educators, and the continued erosion of the 5th Amendment’s protections against takings.

  18. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    Reid:
    Sorry. Links there now. Had to run out this morning. Real life, you know.

  19. Person of Choler Avatar
    Person of Choler

    The internet (and weblogs) have started a modern communications analog of the Protestant Reformation: people are realizing that they don’t need the priesthood of the MSM or pronunciamentoes of the network news Curia to select or interpret what they ought to believe. They are quite capable of searching out information and making up their own minds.
    Pope Dan I isn’t an infallible conveyor of truth. He’s been shown up as an inept carnival sideshow barker. Pay no attention to that man in front of the camera! Hilarity ensues.
    Prof. Reynolds, the Powerline bloggers and many others are the Martin Luthers of the upheaval. Poor Mr. Jarvis is a confused Jesuit who might yearn whimsically to join the reformation but his faith won’t quite turn him loose.

  20. Ruth Avatar

    No, a president doesn’t have the greatest effect on economy, education, infrastructure, etc. But the people he appoints to carry out the law (which he swears to enforce) are very instrumental in the way the country operates and how the laws are enforced – or subverted. And the possibility of three Supreme Court appointments coming up makes it extremely important to look to electing some one with the interests of the country’s future very much at heart.

  21. Robert Brown Avatar
    Robert Brown

    I don’t think most people really want to discuss serious “issues”. They are usually complicated, fraught with uncertainties, often there are no obvious good solutions (or they wouldn’t be issues)and boring.
    It is hopeless to expect issues to e discussed by candidates on the national stage when an election is going to be decided by a few percentage points. One false step (“outsourcing is good in the long run”) would mean certain defeat.
    So we get “I will creat 10 million jobs by cracking down on Benedict Arnold CEO’s” or “I will reduce health care costs by cracking down on trial lawyers”.
    We need a simple answer and a villian that the candidate will vanquish. Germany used the jews in the 1930’s. We have not sunk to that level yet.

  22. Franky Avatar

    To chime in with Robert’s thoughts, although possibly taking them further than he would be comfortable with: Our democracy is showing all the signs of degeneration. It seems almost impossible to feel optimistic about our political system when one looks in to the future. The candidates speak stupidly because as a populace over and over we’ve shown ourselves incapable of electing smart, adult politicians. What do we expect of a political system that gives everyone a say, but we have such an abomninable education system. Do an experiment: go and find an 18-year old and ask them a question of importance. The answer will almost certainly be one of staggering ignorance or absolute indifference or just plain buffoonery.

  23. sbw Avatar

    Franky Our democracy is showing all the signs of degeneration. It seems almost impossible to feel optimistic about our political system when one looks in to the future.
    Sorry, Franky. Conventional wisdom. Possible…, but not necessary.
    Our democracy is showing all the signs of greater communication — which brings a certain number of idiots to the surface [e.g. Jay Leno’s “Jay-Walking”]. But the fact is that with the deeper penetration of communication you have more potential to identify the problem and rectify it.
    Our job is to innoculate people with the simple wisdom to nose horsehockey when they hear it before they do something collectively really stupid.
    Yes, it’s a race, and there is no guarantee that civilization will win, but we have at had tools we’ve never had before — metaphors, feedback systems, experience, even the internet.
    Each generation is pessimistic. Ours should have hope.

  24. Matthew Cromer Avatar
    Matthew Cromer

    I’m very optimistic about the future. No longer is the unelected unofficial fourth branch of government able to control the national debate. First begun with Drudge and the Lewinski scandal in 1998, the dam of thought control began to crack heavily when the blogosphere forced the MSM to report on the swifties and now Rathergate has burst it asunder in a flood of citizen media investigations into the “truth” that CBS News chose to hawk in an attempt to fix the election and with reckless disregard for reality.
    The old era is over, dead, and the self-appointed guardians of public thought had better get used to it.

  25. Brett Avatar

    Franky, I don’t expect the schools to keep my kids aware of current events. To their credit, my schools happen to do that. But in my house, that’s my job first. My daughter, who is 17, is sorely disappointed that she can’t vote this year. And when asked why she would vote for Bush, she can give you in good detail elements of his plans and tell you why they would succeed. She’s turned a great many of her friends around, and some who were once Bush haters now esteem our president.
    She feels quite optimistic about the future, as do her friends. She has a knowledgable voice, and that empowers her.

  26. shark Avatar

    And a year from now, we’ll see some commission wonder why we as a nation didn’t pay attention to terrorism… or the health-care crisis… or education…. or the economy…. It’s because we couldn’t see through the mud on our glasses
    You’re fricking kidding right? I’ve heard plenty about the issues from both sides. You’re the one who’s obsessed with this crap. Bush and Kerry have each laid out their stances on the issues. The contrast is there.
    You get mud when you go looking for mud

  27. Kat Avatar

    The Democrats’ throwing mud to hide the truth won’t help. They are silly enough to think that if they throw real mud they can hide the Swift Boat Vets’ truth in the pile somewhere. Not going to work.
    Today they are big on the blonde bimbo’s book about the Bush family and some new ads. Digging deeper!!! Bush is looking better and better. Thousands of vets in a march against Kerry yesterday. But did the media report that–naw, not considered newsworthy .
    Bet Al Gore is wishing he hadn’t invented the internet. It really hampers Dan Rather and Co. controlling what we should be told.

  28. Charlie (Colorado) Avatar
    Charlie (Colorado)

    Jeff, you’re still missing the real issue: not Bush’s Guard record — which would have made a difference by now if it were going to make a difference — but the fact that we now have glaring evidence that a major media player was willing to, at best, not make a good faith effort to confirm a story, and at worst may have consciously proffered a forgery in order to influence an election.
    I don’t know how this would have affected Bush’s election chances without the immediacy of the blogworld’s ability to fact-check; my guess is that it was a desperate last try that wouldn’t have made a lot of difference anyway.
    But five years ago, this might have worked — and it mightsomeone‘s willingness to use forgery to try and affect the election is important.

  29. Walter E. Wallis Avatar
    Walter E. Wallis

    Was Watergate just mudslinging? You bet your ass. Mud slinging and one marvelously corrupt party hack judge who Nixon should have told to pound sand, then turned of the electricity in his courtroom. Check Dick Tuck for an example of campaign standards of the era.
    Walter E. Wallis
    Palo Alto, CA

  30. shark Avatar

    Jeff, you’re still missing the real issue: not Bush’s Guard record — which would have made a difference by now if it were going to make a difference — but the fact that we now have glaring evidence that a major media player was willing to, at best, not make a good faith effort to confirm a story, and at worst may have consciously proffered a forgery in order to influence an election
    Spot on!
    It’s not mud to point out that Dan Rather and co. have basically destroyed their credibility.
    And so have the NYTimes, the AP, CNN and others.
    And as a media guy AND a blogger, Jeff is in a unique position here.

  31. AndrewBB Avatar

    And bloggers never had credibility – so they’ve got nothing to lose, right?
    Just curious shark – What the hell do you read for information.

  32. Sam_S Avatar

    Bush was probably not a stellar performer, militarily, but then, he didn’t base his candidacy on it either, the kerry camp did, to their everlasting regret.
    The ironic thing about all this is that it looks like the left partisans have handed over the election to Bush, handed over CBS’s viewer market to Fox, handed over news reliability to the blogosphere, and like a wierd Captain Bly, surrendered captainship of the vast information juggernaut to a bunch of misfits in pajamas.
    Talk about “power to the people!”
    Talk about a suicidal campaign.

  33. Tim Avatar

    The real issue is not, the Seinfelding nothingness of all the charges back and forth, but the reaction to them.
    When Bush II was elected, did we imagine the 9/11 attack. When Clinton was elected did we imagine a bomb attack on the World Trade Center?
    The response to attacks and difficult situations is what is important.
    This is the test Kerry has failed so far, this is the test Gore failed, this is the test Dole failed and this is the test Bush I failed in his re-election campaign.

  34. anonymous Avatar

    A couple observations that will never be read/matter…
    I think the assertion that the Republicans have been more persistent in their personal attacks is loopy, Dems have been ferocious for years against Bush. It’s the history of vitriol (Michael Moore claiming Sept. 11 had “nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism” back in 2002 etc.) that undermines any new charges. Kerry’s a blank slate so new stuff sticks.
    I’ll be surprised if Rather goes down before the election. CBS has retreated to a he said/he said position. Without a confession this “scandal” will end up forgotten like Berger, Wilson etc. The only way this could get out of control is if the expert who says she warned CBS can produce the e-mail she allegedly sent, since CBS denies she strongly objected to the documents. Even that would probably blow over; CNN and NYT seem to be backing CBS in a big way.