Debates = Swagger vs. Substance

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Debates = Swagger vs. Substance
12
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 1:57am
“Will the press play Karl Rove's game by, as Mr. Clymer puts it, confusing political coverage with drama criticism, or will it do its job and check the candidates' facts?”

I sincerely hope that the press does whatever fact checking needs to be done and that they take this election as seriously as most of the electorate does.

C


September 28, 2004

Swagger vs. Substance

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Let's face it: whatever happens in Thursday's debate, cable news will proclaim President Bush the winner. This will reflect the political bias so evident during the party conventions. It will also reflect the undoubted fact that Mr. Bush does a pretty good Clint Eastwood imitation.

But what will the print media do? Let's hope they don't do what they did four years ago.

Interviews with focus groups just after the first 2000 debate showed Al Gore with a slight edge. Post-debate analysis should have widened that edge. After all, during the debate, Mr. Bush told one whopper after another - about his budget plans, about his prescription drug proposal and more. The fact-checking in the next day's papers should have been devastating.

But as Adam Clymer pointed out yesterday on the Op-Ed page of The Times, front-page coverage of the 2000 debates emphasized not what the candidates said but their "body language." After the debate, the lead stories said a lot about Mr. Gore's sighs, but nothing about Mr. Bush's lies. And even the fact-checking pieces "buried inside the newspaper" were, as Mr. Clymer delicately puts it, "constrained by an effort to balance one candidate's big mistakes" - that is, Mr. Bush's lies - "against the other's minor errors."

The result of this emphasis on the candidates' acting skills rather than their substance was that after a few days, Mr. Bush's defeat in the debate had been spun into a victory.

This time, the first debate will be about foreign policy, an area where Mr. Bush ought to be extremely vulnerable. After all, his grandiose promises to rid the world of evildoers have all come to naught.

Exhibit A is, of course, Osama bin Laden, whom Mr. Bush promised to get "dead or alive," then dropped from his speeches after a botched operation at Tora Bora let him get away. And it's not just bin Laden: most analysts believe that Al Qaeda, which might have been crushed if Mr. Bush hadn't diverted resources and attention to the war in Iraq, is as dangerous as ever.

There's also North Korea, which Mr. Bush declared part of the "axis of evil," then ignored when its regime started building nuclear weapons. Recently, when a reporter asked Mr. Bush about reports that North Korea has half a dozen bombs, he simply shrugged.

Most important, of course, is Iraq, an unnecessary war, which - after initial boasts of victory - has turned into an even worse disaster than the war's opponents expected.

The Kerry campaign is making hay over Mr. Bush's famous flight-suit stunt, but for me, Mr. Bush's worst moment came two months later, when he declared: "There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on." When they really did come on, he blinked: U.S. forces - obviously under instructions to hold down casualties at least until November - have ceded much of Iraq to the insurgents.

During the debate, Mr. Bush will try to cover for this dismal record with swagger, and with attacks on his opponent. Will the press play Karl Rove's game by, as Mr. Clymer puts it, confusing political coverage with drama criticism, or will it do its job and check the candidates' facts?

There have been some encouraging signs lately. There was a disturbing interlude in which many news organizations seemed to accept false claims that Iraq had calmed down after the transfer of sovereignty. But now, as the violence escalates, they seem willing to ask hard questions about Mr. Bush's fantasy version of the situation in Iraq. For example, a recent Reuters analysis pointed out that independent sources contradict his assertions about everything "from police training and reconstruction to preparations for January elections."

Mr. Bush is also getting less of a free ride than he used to when he smears his opponent. Last week, after Mr. Bush declared that Mr. Kerry "would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today," The Associated Press pointed out that this "twisted his rival's words" - and then quoted what John Kerry actually said.

Nonetheless, on Thursday night there will be a temptation to revert to drama criticism - to emphasize how the candidates looked and acted, and push analysis of what they said, and whether it was true, to the inside pages. With so much at stake, the public deserves better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/opinion/28krugman.html

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-30-2004
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 7:17pm
I do hope the press goes to the substance rather than the fluff of body language. However, I expect they will do as they always do and find the emotional sidebar or some shallow mention of facial expressions and who was the most attractive.

I have to say that I have been very dissapointed in the press this campaign. So many times the stories have no research, no background, no "legwork" so to speak. Do they think we are unable to digest strong news? Apparently, because I feel like I've been fed baby food for a year.

Honestly, I have heard next to nothing about what Kerry is for, only what he would do better. Does he have any new ideas? I don't know!! All I hear is negative, negative and negative.

Avatar for meganeb82
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 12:02pm
Darn liberals! Vote Republican 2004!
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-21-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 12:18pm
I agree, vote for Bush! I don't understand what Kerry stands for, if you look at his record and what he has said in the past, it's so confusing. Stand up for something, we definitely don't need a president who is going to change his views every day, even in a 1 and 1/2 hour debate he said some things that were flip/flops, in just an hour and a half!
Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 12:31pm
Kerry did what he had to do in last night's debate. He presented his message clearly and pointed out the differences between the president's positions/policies and his own. Since your post was pre-debate time, I hope you watched them and found the substance that IMO was there.

It remains to be seen how the "spin doctors" from each side will affect the press reporting.

C

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 12:38pm
Although Kerry won the debate by most polls taken immediately after, you're proof positive that it changed no-one's support for their own candidate :o)

C

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 1:25pm

hi elizabethalbers!


Welcome to the board!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

Visit My Website!

Email me!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 1:26pm

hi kansascountrywoman!


Welcome to the board!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

Visit My Website!

Email me!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 1:53pm
I see John Kerry is a confident public speaker who lacks substantive beliefs and is willing to change his position from day to day depending on political pressure and the results of opinion polls. Unfortunately, the press has focused on height differences and facial expressions rather than substantive differences between the candidates as exemplified in last night's debate. Bottom line: both Kerry and Bush looked at the same intelligence reports and decided that military force was necessary to remove Saddam. Now that force is being used, Kerry refuses to vote to fund our troops so that Iraq can be stabilized. Pres. Bush has expressed a clear and resolute plan: protect the people of Iraq until they have had time to establish their own government, military, and police forces - and then begin a calm and orderly withdrawal of American troops. Kerry's "plan" consists of wishful thinking that he can somehow hold a summit with the French and Germans and convince them and the UN to send troops to Iraq - given that he is not convinced that the war is necessary, it seems highly unlikely that he would be able to convince others to support it! Bottom line, I trust Pres. Bush to make the calm and well-reasoned decisions necessary to protect my family and our country - and I trust him to make those decisions even if they are difficult and/or unpopular. I don't trust Kerry in that way - I think he will always do the expedient thing and then hope that slick talking can convince us that it was the right thing even when it wasn't.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 2:27pm

Hi galanie!


Welcome to the board!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

Visit My Website!

Email me!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 2:52pm
On the local news here they were talking about the debate and talked to two people about it. One woman who was around her late 20's to mid 30's was talking and she said before she was for Bush/Cheney and had a sign in her yard, but after the debate last night she was removing it. There was another woman who was in her mid 40's or so and they asked her and she said she would have liked a bit more excitement (it's not a rally) and was still for Bush.

Pages