The Candor Campaign

How many four-year cycles have we prayed for presidential candidates who speak from their cuffs? From their minds, at least, maybe even their hearts? We have one of each this year: Barack Obama and John McCain. Sorry, Hillary, you haven't done it this time -- not enough, anyway, as Frank Rich asserts. 

Now we can see how it feels to hear the truth, unspun. How it makes anything less stick out like a page of typos. How it preempts media analysis, obviates it. How it sends the acid-talk-radio comedians into dithers. I'm talking about Obama's race relations speech, of course. But I also mean McCain's clarity on immigration and other sticky issues, although he's still trying to stick with the war he's stuck with, trying to keep what's left of the Republican core on his side. 

We have fine people running for President this year, and we've sorted them out from the others. Nice job, voters. Tune out the punditocracy. There's plenty of evidence that nobody's been paying attention to them anyway, except themselves.

Buckley. From the time when conservatives had brains and a conscience.

Cheap shot? It's mine. I'll miss this conservative. He could laugh.

What to write about...let me see...

Why should I have trouble coming up with something to write about in an election year? Should be enough hype flying around to keep me in topics the rest of the year.

Actually, it's good that people are now casting actual votes. It's not so predictable as past years, either. I think the stupidity -- Bush's, Congress's, and ours (come on, we elected 'em) -- has knocked something loose. We're all mad enough to pay attention to the process this year. We also, apparently, don't feel so useless as in the past, and have decided not to let nuts and ad people make our decisions for us.

More people will vote this year than in past years. Bravo. And, I think we also have much better BS radar than ever before. No thanks to the pundits and press camp-followers. At least those folks are beating themselves up this time, instead of rationalizing. Leave that to the candidates and their agents. I'm really looking forward to the big Tuesday. I'm actually feeling confident.

This is a great country. The macho presidency is, like all past entourages, winding down. And we're still here.

Gut check.

First of the year. Seems like a good time to consider what this site's about. Hype is not going away. The question: how to live a relatively sane, sensible life when you're surrounded by it. I think most of us succeed, actually. The early start to our Presidential season actually makes me feel pretty good. Politics don't seem to be nauseating me so much. I think we're a little more awake. Surely, the Republican machine doesn't seem so strident this year. That's smart of them. Even the most jaded of them seem to realize they can't do things the same way as before and expect to command the loyal. Likewise the Democrats. The presence of Obama seems to have changed the tone of their primary campaign. The media people are trying to whip up some fear and loathing, but I think the Clinton-Obama War story is a non-starter. I think they're lobbing macaroons at each other and the voters aren't paying attention to that stuff. I think both parties have learned something from the past six and a half years (Year One being 2001), and I hope the press and TV media do too, eventually. Me, I've slacked off in recent times on this site, though a lot of you come around looking for info on Cymbalta and Dr. Jarvik. Mostly, you're curious, and not much interested in my chronic outrage at drug advertising. It has helped ruin our health care system, but it isn't the only thing. We've put up with it. We share a major part of the blame. Even with all the hooha about all the issues and politics, only about half of us vote. No amount of hype has gotten the rest of us participating in cleaning up our various messes. How about checking your gut. If you spend one minute a year wondering how some of this stuff'll get fixed, shut up. Unless you at least know what's going on, and cast a vote. Thanks for dropping by.

CBS POLICY: ANYTHING GOES, IF YOU DISCLOSE, CHAPTER 2.

I have to admit I missed this one. I saw Rita Braver's interview with Lynne Cheney on CBS's Sunday Morning last Sunday. And I heard her slip her disclosure in--that her husband, Braver's, is a lawyer who did the deal for Ms. Cheney's new book, which of course got a plug on the piece. Happily, many actual working pros in journalism called CBS out on this one. CBS did its usual tap dance about the act of disclosing the connection blowing away the odor of commercial back-patting on this one...same thing they said when I grumped about Ben Stein's piece on the same show in praise of saving for retirement, a subject close to his wallet as national spokesperson for an annuity promotion lobby. It is important to remember when watching that CBS News, once the paragon of rectitude and no-interest-conflicted broadcast journalism, has placed itself in the mainstream of PR-driven Fark News programming. About now, we could use at least one news organization we could trust. I'm afraid I can't think of one.

FARK, NOT NEWS.

Jack Shafer, Slate's media writer, brings fark.com to my attention in an article this morning--the Website's operator, Drew Curtis, has a book. "Fark" is how Drew classifies the non-news that washes over us daily. I'll have more to say on this on marconidreams.com, if you don't mind.

KEEPING MYSELF POLITICALLY SANE.

I watched President Bush's news conference this morning (9/20) on NBC. I found the President clear, cogent, and convincing in his answers and positions, even those regarding Iraq, which I still believe was a blunder. I say this because I, like a lot of people I'm sure, tend to stay in a zone of anger about the Bush administration. I think it was good to watch a news conference live and suspend my attitudes for an hour; to try for something like objectivity. Or at least fairness. Media marketers provide us with abundant opportunities to stay in our comfort zones, reinforcing our rifts. Pandering. Fairness is not in style. I tried it for an hour this morning and I feel better. It was a good workout. I recommend it.

WE COVER THE WORLD.

What’s going on? The other day the earth shook in Peru. I saw it on NBC’s Today show. They went to a correspondent, monitoring the situation…in London. They showed late-breaking video – from Al Jazeera International – the new English-language TV news channel that no American cable or satellite company will touch with a ten-foot dish.

What’s this all about? Why is Ned Colt narrating a report about Lima, Peru, from London? Well, I assume it’s because NBC has no employee based south of Dallas, Texas, who could cover the story on the scene. So, we get pictures gathered by an employee or correspondent of an Arab-owned, Emirate-based news operation, and the voice of nobody in Lima.

American news organizations, even newspapers, have cut their overseas staffs to the bone. I won’t presume to guess at the business motives that have resulted in the shrinkage of on-the-spot staffing of whole swaths of the globe by U.S. news media. My question for today: why shouldn’t I rely on BBC, NPR, and Al Jazeera for international news, when NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and Fox are focused on domestic ambulance chasing, political shouting matches, and celebrity hijinks? Is this our fault? Are Americans so disinterested in the rest of the world, except to complain about, that we don't want our reporters telling us about it?

WHITE HOUSE SURGE IN PRESS CIVIL WAR.

Don't doubt for a minute it's a civil war. Today's exchanges are typical. This morning the New York Times reported that White House occupants are debating new Iraq war policies. A few hours later, Reuters reports, Tony Snow denied it. Count yourself fortunate. You live in America, where it's legal to challenge a secretive President. Begin to worry when the press stops reporting everything they hear, immediately. And keep demanding to know why.

CURB YOUR PARANOIA. BUT WATCH OUT FOR HYPE.

I don't think most people care much if big media companies control the news. Journalism is terribly upset right now at the probability that Rupert Murdoch will soon run the Wall Street Journal. This may surprise you, but I don't hear my friends bringing it up over coffee.

I mean, how upset can you get, when lobbyists control Congress. What harm can a little self-serving news-stacking do?

Let me give a small but significant example: MSNBC is a joint venture of NBC and Microsoft (though MS may have fully phased out their equity position by now). NBC is owned by NBC-Universal, which is owned by General Electric. NBC News has always been a good, clean news source, and still is. But it's harder for broadcasting companies, which aren't in the news business, to keep their hands off editorial content. Here's a feature story on the MSNBC Web site (last time I checked, it was the top rated news site on the Web) on "The Future of Business" (LINK), about how Boeing's spectacularly successful new aircraft, the Dreamliner, has revolutionized the industry.

Note the photo caption at the top of the page:

"Extensive capabilities in electronic and mechanical technologies are being deployed to support aircraft systems integration through deliveries by GE Aviation for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner."

For me, the eagle-eyed media pro, this translates to: "This slathering puff piece is an example of how a great manufacturing company keeps its clients happy. Do you really think, as the owner of a major cable-Web news operation, we wouldn't use it for our own business purposes? Duh!"

There are other clues in the story. Like the mention that the 787 rollout is coming up soon, and that Boeing has "rented an entire football field to simulcast the rollout, which will be emceed by broadcaster Tom Brokaw [Major General, NBC, Ret.]." No doubt GE's helping pay for the party. I didn't find the usual meaningless disclosure line on the Web page -- "MSNBC is owned by GE."

I bet I can find plenty of examples of corporate hype-news without working my mouse too hard. Except, maybe, in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, or the Washington Post, none of which are owned by companies in other industries. Shall we write our Congresspersons? I don't think so -- believe me, you don't want the FCC regulating news either. I think I'll write GE and NBC. Do you care if NBC thinks GE hype is news. Hope so. Maybe if we stop being passive consumers, news-as-hype could be made to go away.

BLOOMBERG'S BOLD MOVE.

Don't get me wrong. Everybody who flirts with running for President of the United States makes a bold move. But I think Michael Bloomberg's departure from the Republican Party is uniquely bold, and, in terms of politics-hype, brilliant. Every new-lead-desperate media monster (read: all of them) is talking about him this week, not just in the media capitals, but out in the heartland, too. You can find every last ort of the story reported and masticated. Just Ask or Google Michael Bloomberg. In today's bits-per-second world it was all out there in about as long as it took to run spellcheck. 

Never mind what he's saying (I'm not running). He's the first in--to the inevitable, much needed test-marketing of the non-elephant-non-donkey in the room. The new American third party. Other than the inescapable fact, for me, that the next president can't be Republican...now I'm getting excited about the possibilities.  

ZUCKER'S NBC.

I don't know if Jeff Zucker should get the credit-blame for the Today Show's post-Meredith revamp, but I have a bone to pick, and whichever bald-white-guy-in-suit who's running NBC takes the heat. It goes almost without saying that everything on TV has a promotional hook attached. But most news operations go hunting for outside experts to provide depth to health, science, and other specialized stories. Today has recently decided to build a cadre of its own experts, like Nancy Snyderman, the physician-talker, for example, ready at a moment's notice to articulate the details. I'm not so sure this is a good thing. I don't mind their having their "editors," and "consultants," but isn't it a bit, well, limiting? And is it truly journalism? I'm particularly uncomfortable with Dr. Keith Ablow as Today's "explainer," and, I think, resident bloviator on all things associated with human behavior. Like, today, he and his shaved, glowing pate held forth on the wayward astronaut and her alleged attack on an alleged romantic rival. This is a perfect TV story, and no show is going to waste time waiting for details before full on-camera psychiatric analyses. Ablow was there this morning, fully a-blow on the subject. When I start to feel creepy, I know we're in the hype zone. Who is this guy? Why is he the most qualified shrink in all of New York City, other than the fact that he's got a new TV talk show. I even assumed NBC-U had a financial interest in him. But he's with Warner Brothers. Anyway, Jeff, I'm getting that creepy itch. Is the budget so tight that you can't develop more real sources? TV is really thinking smaller these days, folks.

O.K., ALREADY, IT'S A CIVIL WAR.

11/29/06 - A little rewrite:

NBC announced yesterday that it will hereafter refer to the turmoil in Iraq as a "civil war." The term joins the officially sanctioned list of television news words which is found pinned to the cubicle wall of every local news writer and editor in America. On local TV newscasts we can now expect to hear reports like the following:

"Horrific morning in traffic, right, Bob?"

"Right! As you can see from our bridge-cam, I-5 is a regular civil war of congestion this morning! I was devastated when I logged on this morning."

"Talk about a civil war, how about that school board meeting last night. This could change our lives forever!"

INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM, KOMO-TV STYLE.

Seattle's a pretty good TV news town. There, I've satisfied my vestigial fairness doctrine urge. Weeks ago, October 8, to be exact (God, I love Google), the Seattle Times published an editorial about a failed city experiment -- placing slick, automated public toilet kiosks around downtown, hoping to get street people to clean up their acts. Seems the cybercans have become convenient privacy stations for other street pursuits. As of this morning, that editorial, and other token stories on the subject in other token media, ran at least three weeks ago, and are long dead and gone. But who sent out their crack "investigative" team to visit the toilet kiosks for the purpose of nabbing perps, in the act? Why, KOMO-TV, apparently now going for Cheesiest News Operation in the November Sweeps "Cheesies" awards competition. I saw a promo for their piece this morning -- plenty of quick cuts, fearlessly coiffed female reporter chasing assorted street folk, shouting uncharacteristically penetrating questions. "Is that crack you're blowing out of your mouth?" The promos, as you know, run many more cumulative minutes than the "package" runs in the newscast it's supposed to hype. KOMO's current positioning slogan: "Working 4 You!" It's the last locally-owned TV station in Seattle. In case you haven't noticed, local ownership means nothing in TV and radio. We can also retire the word, "investigative." In fact, while you're at it, scratch "news" from the broadcast operators' lexicon.

WHY WE NEED GOOD NEWSPAPERS.

The Seattle Times has been investigating court secrecy in the Seattle area. Today's paper (and site) leads with this account of how a court commissioner sealed the records of a potentially significant and novel lawsuit -- the family of a woman who died of ovarian cancer sued prestigious Virginia Mason Medical Center for failing to advise her to have ovarian surgery in light of her family's history of cancer, and "decades" of medical literature about genetic risk. She died at 42. That was five years ago. The court commissioner sealed the record and the settlement prevented the publishing of medical journal articles about it.

Of all the media companies chattering away in this major health sciences center, only the Seattle Times has investigated the local health industry. Or the courts, for that matter. Even our "best" TV station news operation, KING-TV, wins "awards" for mere litigation-safe muckraking, and devotes great chunks of its newscasts to "HealthLink" features sponsored in sweetheart advertising endorsement deals by the healthcare establishment institutions they frequently cover. KING's news department just got an Edward R. Murrow Award for "general excellence." Sure, they're "generally excellent." Unfortunately, Murrow Awards are doled out by the Radio and Television News Directors Association (RTNDA), with the help, presumably, of their news consultants, so they have little meaning -- there are only so many news directors to choose from for the award, and the truly excellent local TV journalism operations can be counted on fewer fingers every year. Getting the Murrow can't mean much to the good KING staffers, when KIRO-TV, the city's second cheesiest operation, got one. It's all grist for those incessant news promo spots, anyway.

In our current poisonous political and public affairs atmosphere, we need more truth-telling. We have more than enough entertainment. They say the newspaper business is in trouble. I'm rooting for it to thrive.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. LOOK IT UP.

Freedom of the press in the United States is always under attack...usually from government officials we elect to protect it....that's just the way it is in one of the few countries on the planet to truly practice freedom of the press. If you don't have it, stressed-out public servants don't have to attack it.

Though he looked and sounded mad as hell, President Bush, our Commander in Chief, labeled the New York Times', L.A. Times', and Wall Street Journal's reporting on the government's secret financial fishing merely "disgraceful." The Vice-Commander in Chief, Mr. Cheney, at his most ominous and scary-looking, could work himself up no further than "very damaging." It was left to a lowly Second Lieutenant, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to drop the T-bomb -- "treasonous," regarding the Times' "absolutely disgraceful" behavior (adjective his, emphasis mine). As if our enemies couldn't figure out what we're doing without the help of the free U.S. press....

My advice: don't overreact. I'm more worried about corporations like, say, Comcast or AT&T sifting through our communications and financial histories and pressuring our representatives to pass laws that let them price-control Internet bandwidth, than I am letting the NSA (Check out their new "kids' site) try to guess how to screen our data for terrorist activity. It's just another Rove-Bush-Cheney smoke storm, produced mostly for consumption by loyalists, whose eyes are glazing over their golden boys' performance. Loud, angry voices make network newsrooms jump. (Notice, no Presidential condemnation of network newsrooms, who promptly repeated the NYT reports). Anyway, just breathe, and remember you live in America, and we have overcome, before.

Messrs. Rove, Bush, Cheney, and 2nd Lt. King would do well to read history less selectively. Other Executive Branch folk who've blown red-white-and-blue anti-press smoke in our faces have not fared well.