A gathering of squirrels…
Two nutty ideas have emerged from the press coverage of the Democratic Convention: 1) That the convention is so scripted that there’s no news to be found, and 2) That convention speakers shouldn’t criticize the President if the Kerry campaign has asked that the president not be attacked. (Note: I do not know the exact wording of the request from the Kerry campaign, so I am assuming a contrast between “criticize” and “attack” that seems to me to define the current behavior of some journalists and pundits. I am also aware these terms are open to interpretation.)
I’ve already discussed the first nutty idea. As for the second, with the apparent unity of the Democrats–a minor miracle–fire-breathing attacks just aren’t necessary. The rhetorical situation allows for the effective delivery of other messages–messages that may resonate with the undecided middle (e.g. the stunning Barack Obama speech or Bill Clinton’s assertion that conservatives “need” a divided America).
The narrative bias of journalism dictates that there must be antagonists and protagonists in every story and that the conflict between the two is the central plot and theme. It is typical of columnists and other pundits, then, to interpret in the extreme any political assertion, proposition, or request in order to create the necessary drama. For example, Kerry requests speakers to take it easy on Bush, and that opens the door for columnists to criticize any criticism speakers might make of Bush and/or his policies. Jules Witcover, for example, gets suckered by the surface drama and misses the bigger picture–along with the news.
A more interesting question to ponder is: Why take it easy on Bush? I think Josh Marshall may have discovered the intention behind this rhetorical maneuver.
It was Castro, oddly enough, who reminded me of the difference between (rhetorically) attacking someone and criticizing them. There was never really any possibility that anyone was going to call Our Only President a drunk from the podium.
,
-V.