Why the media covered the 2000 election the way it did.

(1/1)

Benjamin Frank 2.0:
AKA things I've always suspected about the media but never thought they'd actually admit.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh061403.shtml

These are written in Margaret Carlson's book (no she's actually not the mother of Tucker Carlson)

CARLSON (page 101): The campaign, or specifically the campaign plane, is the last time the press gets to see the man who would be president more closely than an attentive viewer of C-SPAN. Bush didn’t like campaigning, so he treated the time on the press like recess, a chance to kick back between math and chemistry classes. He was seductive, playful, and most of all, himself. It’s a failure of some in the press—well, a failure for me—that we are susceptible to a politician directing the high beams of his charm at us. That Al Gore couldn’t catch a break had something to do with how he was when his hair was down. Only it never was.

Unlike the writer at the Daily Howler, I think 'character' (personality) matters in a President. So, if a reporter wants to tell readers or viewers that George W Bush was friendlier or had better people skills than Al Gore, I think that's valid information in a Presidential choice, but this is an outright admission of unprofessional behavior.

Also, of course, was this really George W. Bush as "himself", or was it merely the persona he used to appeal to people he knew were important to him? Carlson seems to be oblivious to that possibility.

And what you may have thought:
CARLSON (page 105): Gore wanted the snacks to be environmentally and nutritionally correct, but somehow granola bars ended up giving way to Fruit Roll-Ups and the sandwiches came wrapped and looked long past their sell-by date. On a lucky day, someone would remember to buy supermarket doughnuts. By contrast, a typical day of food on Air Bush…consisted of five meals with access to a sixth, if you count grazing at a cocktail bar. Breakfast one was French toast, scrambled eggs, bacon…

Yes, indeed, keep the media fat and happy and they'll return it in spades. (When I say 'the media' here rather than just 'Margaret Carlson' it's because she clearly was speaking for everybody in the Washington Press corps, even those who didn't love George W Bush or hate Al Gore.)

On 'loving' George W Bush
CARLSON (page 100): I miss George Bush. Sure, I see him every day up on a podium, breezing into a fund-raiser, or walking across the South Lawn to Marine One. True, I was only a few dinner plates away from him at Katherine Graham’s house and within joking distance at the White House Christmas party, where he charmed my goddaughter.

More importantly though, even more of things I've always thought about the media but never thought they'd admit. Margaret Carlson even admits the media is lazy and ignorant about public policy.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh061603.shtml
(To be sure, I'm assuming here what the dailyhowler is reporting what Carlson said is true.)

For the record, Carlson had explained Gore’s lousy coverage in real time, in a way that was even more revealing. On Tuesday, October 10, 2000, Carlson appeared on Imus in the Morning to discuss press coverage of Bush and Gore’s first debate. As she noted, Gore was being slammed as a liar because of a few trivial misstatements. Much larger howlers were being ignored—misstatements by Bush about policy matters. Speaking with Imus, Carlson explained the press corps’ apparent double standard:

CARLSON (10/10/00): Gore’s fabrications may be inconsequential—I mean, they’re about his life. Bush’s fabrications are about our life, and what he’s going to do. Bush’s should matter more but they don’t, because Gore’s we can disprove right here and now. We can’t disprove that there’s going to be a chicken in every pot.
According to Carlson, the press had focused on what was easy. She explained in a bit more detail:
CARLSON: You can actually disprove some of what Bush is saying if you really get in the weeds and get out your calculator or you look at his record in Texas. But it’s really easy, and it’s fun, to disprove Gore.
It was “fun” to disprove Gore’s errors! Carlson took her presentation through one more startling iteration:
CARLSON: I actually happen to know people who need government, and so they would care more about the programs, and more about the things we kind of make fun of…But as sport, and as our enterprise, Gore coming up with another whopper is greatly entertaining to us. And we can disprove it in a way we can’t disprove these other things.

As Carlson herself had just said though, Bush's lies weren't just about making promises that he probably couldn't keep but that couldn't be proved at the time, much of what he said could be disproved in real time (like 'tax cuts paying for themselves.') It's just that they take actual knowledge of public policy and some actual work.

But, remember, the media is liberal!

Navigation

[0] Message Index