: WoPo snark…
Normally, I think newspapers should avoid being snarky. But the lead paragraph of an article in today’s Washington Post about Howard Dean is simply priceless:
Howard Dean is running for president, The Washington Post has learned.
Then there’s the fourth paragraph:
But despite appearances, Dean has not been running for president, says Courtney O’Donnell, a spokeswoman for the former governor. Rather, “he’s been having a dialogue with the American people,” says O’Donnell, one of about 70 staffers who have been hired to help Dean have his dialogue with the American people. She confirms that Dean plans to formally announce his candidacy today.
The lead does more than raise a cackle. It suggests to the reader that this article will attempt to explain some of the tactics of campaign politics, especially as they concern message control and image creation. Everyone knows Dean is running. Why is he making an official announcement today?
The first easy answer is: To take advantage of the summer news doldrums. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
But, again, Dean’s communications staff demonstrates a surprising amateurism by making such an asinine statement to the press (assuming correct quotation and context). The sad fact may be, however, that this line of spin was approved higher up the campaign food chain.
O’Donnell’s silly quote (and the fact they’re calling it an “announcement” rather than using a good sports metaphor such as “kickoff”) makes the WoPo snark possible.
UPDATE (1:20 p.m.): How seriously should we take this article? See the comments on this entry for what I hope becomes an interesting conversation about satire, snark, and the political utility of “news” articles. Please join in!
UPDATE (5:30 p.m.): Here’s the news story from today’s event from the Associated Press. I’ll analyze the Dean speech for Presidential Campaign Rhetoric 2004 before the end of the week.
(UPDATE 7:50 p.m.): Saletan deconstructs Dean.
Dr Cline:
The Mark Leibovich piece in the WaPo on the Howard Dean announcement was a satirical piece on the front page of the style section (it might not have been readily apparent from the website, but it’s NOT a news item). I couldn’t tell from your blog post whether you realized this or not, but I thought I’d point it out to make sure. You may remember about a month or so ago that Katie Couric latched on to another of Leibovich’s satirical pieces about Bob Graham’s notebooks. She asked Graham about it on the Today show, clearly unaware that the piece was a joke. I didn’t want you to suffer the same embarrassment that she did!
Best,
Dave
Speaking of demented comments, I read today where your senior Senator had this to say yesterday in Chicago at a Jesse Jackson confab: “When I’m president, we’ll have executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day”. And people say John Ashcroft is scary! (what is it about these Missouri people?)
Meanwhile,Al Sharpton sort of makes the case AGAINST affirmative action when he said that Democrats shouldn’t be talking about getting more blacks in high places, but getting the right blacks. His quote: “Clarence Thomas is my color, but he’s not my kind.” Maybe they should rename the party to The Party of the Totally Insane! I hope this insanity is seasonal, kinda like rutting season!! The Dems really should give up these special interest confabs - someone always comes away looking stupid or opportunistic - or both - or worse!
Dave…thanks for your concern. I am aware that it ran on C1. I am not aware that it is entirely a satire. Rather is appears to me to be a satirical treatment of a legitimate “news” item. Thus my calling it snarky.
Leibovich quotes Dr. William Mayer, a noted Harvard Ph.D. and professor of political science at Northeaster University. I am not aware that any of the quotes are fake. There is no indication on the web that this is anything other than a legitimate article with legitimate sources, satirical or snarky to be sure.
Further, a Google search demonstrates that Courtney O’Donnell is indeed a Dean spokesperson.
Yes. The article is satire. And it is snarky. And it also most certainly is a contribution to the political talk of the campaign. In other words, news consumers will read this and form opinions about Dean. The article, despite being a snarky bit of entertainment on C1, still has political impact of a sort.
Again, thanks for the alert. It means a lot to me that Rhetorica readers want to keep me from making a fool of myself. I fear that may be a Quixotic effort sometimes
Rebecca…it’s the tornadoes. They drive you insane!