Great expectations…
I wonder what would happen if a political party decided not to create expectations prior to its convention. What would the press do?
For example, Democrats said they would run a positive convention. And the Kerry campaign apparently asked speakers to go easy on President Bush. Why create these expectations?
The obvious answer is: message control. But how much control over the message can a party be said to have when it hands the press one half of a dramatic dichotomy? What the press will do is go looking for the opposite half–the ying of the offered yang. They do this because the fairness bias demands reporters get “both sides” of the story and the narrative bias demands drama in contention.
If you tell journalists that you intend to be “positive,” that guarantees they will go looking for the negative. And they’ll find it. In the case of a political convention, it’s easier to find than one’s own backside.
What would happen if party strategists, handlers, and candidates refused to pre-characterize an event?
For one, it might force journalists to take a little harder look at the substance of the speeches (although I’ll bet this is exactly what some of them think they are doing). But here’s what we get from Todd S. Purdum’s “Political Memo” column in The New York Times:
When Edward M. Kennedy vowed this week that John Kerry’s election would make John Adams’s famous prayer that none but “honest and wise” men ever rule the White House “ring true again,” was he by any chance hinting that he thinks a dishonest dope rules there now?
When Bill Clinton declared that, “strength and wisdom are not opposing values,” was that just a nicer way of saying that he believes, “You don’t have to be dumb to be strong”?
…
When it comes to the Democrats’ promise to run an upbeat convention, positive is a relative term. Speaker after speaker has wrapped invective in a veil of indirection, softened what would otherwise be stinging attacks with a smile and slyly bashed Mr. Bush while barely mentioning his name.
“It’s the art of the implicit slam,” one veteran Democratic speechwriter here acknowledged, speaking on condition of anonymity because he knew he was speaking out of school.
Of course these are slams. This is the typical, dog-bites-man fare of American political address. It’s damned difficult–not to mention stupid–not to implicitly compare your candidate to the opponent in such speeches and by such methods. Among the few rhetorical points of such campaigning is to draw such distinctions for the audience.
But by setting up a fuzzy expectation of positiveness, the Democrats have made it easy for the press to follow their own scripts to coverage that ignores the substance of the oratory.
Evil thought experiment: I wonder how the coverage would have been different if the Democrats had said they intended to run a savage and negative convention and then delivered exactly the same addresses? Hmmmmm…and what would that say about journalistic practice and the role of journalism in a democracy?
(Note: Normally, I’m happy to see members of the press do even rudimentary textual analysis. But to be politically useful, such analysis must, in the end, lead to something that citizens can use to make an informed decision. One big problem with Purdum’s analysis is simply this: Nearly everyone already gets it. He’s not revealing anything that isn’t already apparent to the average citizen.) (via Political Wire)
I happened to catch an interview with Jon Stewart on Nightline last night. It was remarkable how it tracked with the points you’ve been making (I think).
The ostensible topic was the fracturing of the media into narrowcast, biased bits as evidenced at the convention, and what this portends for the Republic. Koppel asked the standard Stewart question, “How ’bout them kids using the Daily Show as their sole source of information?”
Stewart, as usual, rejected the premise and deftly turned the issue back at Ted. The kids are not tuning into the Daily Show to get the news, but the punchline (he phrased it much better). The typical TV newscast (i.e., Nightline and NewsHour), lets liberal gal and conservative guy each spout their talking points and cite a few hopelessly skewed think tank statistics essentially unchallenged, before wrapping up with “thank you both for joining us.” The viewer is left thinking, “What did I miss?”
That’s all fine and dandy, said Koppel, but real journalists aren’t allowed to yuk it up.
That’s not the point, replied Stewart. The point is to cut through the B.S. What’s stopping the reporter from simply and soberly pointing out the facts? That’s what the viewer really wants: a discussion that reveals the truth, not blurs it.
I’m not sure if Koppel was offended, or simply lost track of time. But he cut Stewart off mid-sentence and said “OK, you’re finished.”
I’m not doing the exchange justice, and I left out Stewart’s explanation of why the conventions are still worthy of network coverage and his description of Alexander the Great’s cable news network. Hopefully the video will turn up somewhere on the Net.
“What would happen if party strategists, handlers, and candidates refused to pre-characterize an event?”
If they did this, then they would be ignoring heresthetics (http://www.rhetorica.net/heresthetics.htm). This would be a gross abdication of their responsibilty to achieve their goals. It would cede to others (including their opponents) the opportunity to structure the situation, more than likely to their detriment.
You may argue that in a given situation, the rhetor did a good job or a bad job of managing the heresthetics, but you have to keep in mind, the job of the candidate, his party, and supporters, is to get into power, not to serve the public interest. Only when in power can they have a chance to achieve their purposes, which is to serve the public interest as they see it.
If you doubt this, ask yourself, “How much influence on public policy and governance does Al Gore have?”
Nothing to See Here – Francis Crick Memorial edition
Seventy people were killed by a car bomb in Iraq yesterday.
Sven…I’m a big Jon Stewart fan
Charles…the question is rhetorical. I like your answer. I think, however, the Dems may have made a poor choice in pre-convention characterization.
If Democratic Party functionaries didn’t try to set the stage for a convention, they’d be fired for incompetence. And if reporters didn’t report the party’s promises, which they knew to be a joke, tehy would be fired.
The role of the media is to let important sources make fools of themselves by promising to go easy on Bush and then skewering him at every opportunity. Viewers know the game, and get a chuckle out of it. Most of the small audience that watches conventions are politically sophisticated and follow politics the way sports fans follow the politics of basketball, baseball and football.
What the audience appreciates is the skill of the players in the anticipation game and in trying to manipulate the voting public and the press. While this is a serious game, it also is entertaining and quite revealing. It shows who’s to be trusted and believed and who’s a joker, a flip flopper and a straight shooter. There were no straight shooters in Boston. Big surprise.
Political junkies not only watch and listen to the coverage of the political conventions, they read their newspapers, watch and listen to talk shows and scan blogs and message boards. Many of us read and hear the same story in several newspapers and on several talk shows, and then we think for ourselves. Indeed, the public often is better at figuring out what’s going on than the reporters who cover the story and the pundits who give their takes on the story.
So, don’t worry about journalistic bias, completeness or approaches to a story. Information consumers know how to read and listen and decide for themselves. Only elitists believe otherwise.
Donald… re: “So, don’t worry about journalistic bias, completeness or approaches to a story. Information consumers know how to read and listen and decide for themselves. Only elitists believe otherwise.”
Hmmmmm…you haven’t read my bias page (linked frequently), have you? If you had, you’d know what I think about journalistic bias and the elitist/political practice of complaining about it.
If you haven’t been a Rhetorica reader for very long, let me clue you in: I ask a lot of “what if” questions designed to poke around the assumptions and premises of journalistic and political messages. When I ask what would happen if the DNC refused to pre-characterize the convention, I’m not suggesting that they do so. When I ask what would happen if the DNC were to characterize the event as negative, I’m not suggesting that they do so. Rather, as this entry attempts to do, I’m poking around the premises and assumptions behind some of the same observations you’re making. Also, quite often I will offer no answer.
Yes, I ask rhetorical questions on my blog and on message boards sometimes, but more often I make declarative statements that shut off debate rather than stimulate it. Sometimes, I find, my readers think I’m playing games with them when I ask questions, and I am.
Good fun, eh? You’re a great writer, btw.
Donald…thank you. I assume that also means you’re enjoying reading Rhetorica
Here’s a link to a partial transcript of the Koppel-Stewart interview:
http://www.lostremote.com/archives/001905.html
Very interesting.