The title states the question. The growing gulf between any sort of balance and objectivity in the mainstream televised media (and to a lesser degree the newspapers) and the actual facts and true character of the subject being reported strongly suggest such a forum would indeed be useful, even necessary.
What prompts this in addition to prior musings on the matter is the recent feedback and commentary arising from the prior `blaming the messenger' post.
For example, commentatary there drew attention to some key facts. There *is* need for a reliable and accurate news source, and the catch-22 is this: not only is that not true of the present brand of `mainstream news' (and this refers to Cable like MSNBC and FOX as much as the old `Big Three') but further, those outlets do not call attention to or admit that their main goal now is entertainment and audience draw. The reason this is significant is that a large segment of the public -- albeit shrinking by the day -- still believes the TV news to be near-gospel truth and accurately cross-checking its facts. This might be called the `legacy of the Walter Cronkite' days or public image of investigative reporting.
Most of the public has no idea now just how "derivative" and `headlines first' oriented the media has become. In fact, it is not uncommon for major TV outlets to simply base their day's stories and leads on what the New York Times leads with first. More and more, the media appears to cater to snaring a particular `target-audience' or base, not unlike the two political parties, rather than both tracking down the news, and reporting the truth. Spin, rather than the old watchdog function, dominates the day.
Much has been said about the `bias' of the media, and it is true --- alot of it is ideologically driven, but the main motive is audience share. Truth or fact-checking has almost nothing to do with it. And the newer outlets like FOX are no exception. They too, cater to delivering content calculated to stimulate and draw a target audience. The importance of this cannot be over-stated. It means that you have at once two things: (1) A public that still thinks the mass media seeks to `report the news and inform', and (2) a mass media that seeks audience share at almost any cost, with accuracy playing almost no role at all, and a willingness to `target a base constituency' if it will meet its rating needs, thus allowing it to neglect true balance in its reporting. It is easy to see how the combination of these two has led to a dangerous state of the public being consistently misled from one wing of the spectrum to the other, with the common ground usually being whatever `most provokes and stirs' the viewer.
One of the commentators on the last post pointed out that it is useless to complain of this supposed abandonment by the mass media of a `responsibility to inform' regarding the public. And this because nearly all of it is now owned by mega corporations whose primary goal is the bottom line, which in turn is driven by advertising, which naturally, brings us back to "audience share" as paramount. As another commentator pointed out, this leads to the kind of distortion where there is a prior public expectation of truth that arguably justifies some form of regulation and oversight as is found in Food and Drug Advertising. Especially if there is not further transparency about the mass media's agendas at present, and they continue to posture behind the guise of political `watchdogs' rather than what they have become, `political lapdogs' -- where the only difference is to what party or ideology.
Yet this is precisely the point. If the `mass media' has no obligation to inform -- and I can agree with this --- then it also should not enjoy any "default level of trust" on this score. Furthermore, if the mass media is not going to accurately and responsibly *inform* the general public, than something else must take up that task. Because there is no disputing the need for such accurate and least biased-as-possible flow of information. Particularly regarding government political trends, votes, foreign policy, and domestic initiatives.
Therefore, it is the writer's opinion that the time has come for the government, both state and federal, to wake up to the fact that in a very real sense, it has no accurate voice speaking for it. The truth only filters through blogs, print media, and online sources and bulletins lengthy and detailed enough to describe it, and these are only being consulted by a minority with the time, skill, and inclination to do so. Yet just because most of the working public is too busy to research the truth and do the `comparative fact shopping' its pursuit requires, does not mean the public should then be blamed for being misled by the mass media which it had been raised to look to for such information.
No, the blame goes of course to the source of mis-information and spin continuing to present itself as objective, and the blame also goes to the simple lack of a voice for the government that is not already `hard wired' to either Left or Right in inclination, or Democrat vs Republican. What is needed is an information arm that will soberly and clearly lay out at regular intervals what decisions and actions are being made, and the where/who-to to address if one wishes to get more involved.
A good example is the lamentable mass media reporting about the Iraq War, vs the quality reports of embedded journalists, online bloggers, and print media summations that never make it to the TV screen except as a one line sound-byte before a "hard break for a commercial". It is arguable that much of the perceived failure in the administration and the Iraq War is due to its contining inability to speak about its achievements or accurately describe whats going on. Always what is said is filtered either thru the jingoistic never-say-wrong bullhorn of the Right media, or the pessimistic and carping doubt of the Left media.
From discussions it seems pretty clear to most of those with familiarity with history that we are currently in a "yellow journalism" period very much like that of 1898 and the Spanish-American War. On top of this, the problem is exaberrated by equally obscuring and manipulative "gotcha" politics by both parties, and campaign handlers and advisors such as Karl Rove and James Carville, whose expertise and brilliance lies in winning votes, not accuracy and truth. Divide and conquer politics, not consensus seeking, is the rule of the day. Faced with such a nexus of circumstance, at first glance, any `reform' of the mass media seems difficult, if not impossible.
However, despite the tone of this post, IMO, the situation is not nearly so intractable. It only requires thinking outside the box. In this case, the `box' is the very assumption that the mass media be the only voice available for officials and policy to communicate. The establishment of a bureau that would provide government with a way to "boringly" speak about basic and straightforward matters whether dynamic like Iraq War plans, or mundane, like projected pharmacy reform, would go a long way toward providing a means for the public to be put-in-the-picture sufficiently to make at least reasonably informed decisions and votes. Partisanship might be minimized by making it subject to a fact checking process, as well as staffed in a manner indepedent of the changes in administrations that come with Presidential elections.
To the inevitable objection that such might simply become a government `propaganda arm' the best reply is though a risk, it is worth taking. The need for a more sober and unifying political climate and information dissemination is so dire that some major changes are necessary if national `balkanization' is to be avoided. Under the current scheme you have a series of competing corporate-doormat news agencies each catering to `their base' at the expense of those outside that base, lambasting and provoking to play on their base's emotions and win ratings. None of them are seeking to build consensus, or point out where it might exist.
An official source might start to do this, especially if its charter began with an emphasis on integrity and a zero-tolerance for inaccuracy and distortion. By setting such a high bar, the natural pressure of being `outed' on any major falsehood would act as a corrective, instead of the resigned `expectation of falsehood' the public now feels toward TV in general. As for a possible overseer/parent, the author's familiarity with the straightforward and sober manner of the National Archives administration suggests it as a likely candidate. It tends to have a `long view' and seems to avoid excessive partisan outlook because its activities and staff tend to span several presidential administrations. In any case, it suggest a model, and since the means is already at hand, the need building by the day, all that remains is to settle on its form.
For the truth is, such a source is already available, via the online media and its ability to quickly and reasonably fact-check and verify the truth of things, and where necessary, locate and involve experts truly well-positioned or read to do so. What is needed then, is a forum where this capability is actively harnessed and put to use on an information basis, where profit and audience share is not the goal. As its reputation for accuracy and reliability grew, those truly interested in policy would increasingly learn to reference it. Nor could the mass media as easily get away with distortions in instances where it was revealed they had not consulted or cross-checked with this forum or clearing house. Who knows, in time, this might weaken the trend to `yellow journalism' in turn, and the mass media might ease back toward a more reliable presentation as in the days of the truly "Evening News".
- Anthony
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Monday, April 10, 2006
"Blaming the Messenger" is justified these days...
The past several days has seen a perplexing and continuing spin and odd phraseing of the debate on the illegal immigration problem. This brings to mind that recently some members of the press, particularly the White House Press Corps, and several leading newspapers, were complaining that the American public was in a frame of mind to "simply shoot the messenger", to blame the media for the bad news they were reporting, whether it be on Iraq, or domestic issues like the immigration imbroglio.
However, I submit that rarely has a "Messenger" so rated and earned that curse, the proverbial shooting. With the possible and instructive exception of the "Yellow Journalism" that helped trigger the Spanish-American War in the 1890's, more than any other time, today's media does rate "the blame" for much of the ills currently plagueing the national psyche. Protests that they are simply "reporting what is happening, don't blame us" fall flat once it is realized how calculated both the instances of omission of reporting are, and in phraseing of mention and issues.
Two examples will suffice. Regarding the Iraq War, it is demonstrable and well-attested that in many cases, the press corps does not move far from the hotels they are billeted at, and focus on simply obtaining and running footage of the latest bombing or insurgent atttack. Almost no effort is made to describe and report, let alone actually go out and chronicle, the efforts of our troops and Iraqi forces in the rebuilding effort, or to determine the true parameters of unrest, or even more crucially, where enemy activity is weak or or on the wane. It is something of a historical truism that if you say something long enough, it will become self-fulfilling. The media has spent much time "talking down" the Iraq War, and all but excluding tangible reports and coverage of the real successes and progress clearly documented by many military participants and bloggers. They have done this so long, that the insurgent and terrorist activity is not only encouraged, but bolstered. For the coverage has been disgustingly knaive, sometimes going as far as characterizing the terrorist counter-strikes as "freedom fighters". Never mind that these are freedom-fighters that do not hesitate to kill real freedom expression by seeking to intimidate and disrupt votes and elections.
This is not "reporting" -- this is spin, pure and simple. Its as insane as if the U.S. Press had spent all its time covering attrition losses of crewmen on American destroyers to strafing Japanese Zeros during the battle of Guadalcanal, with little coverage of the progress toward the final securing of the island being announced. Whatever one feels about the administration's drive to war --- and this writer holds the White House Public relations style and quality in great disdain - it can rightly be said that with a "Messenger" such as this on the war front, it arguably would be best to have none at all. It is that bad. In their apparent desire to relive the 1960's much of the media moguls have reprenhensibly mis-characterized and talked down Operation Iraqi Freedom to an extent that favors the enemy's goals more than any truth. In the late 1890's yellow journalism sought and unleashed a war for Cuba's future --- in the 2000's an analogous yellow journalism seeks now to lose a war for Iraq's future. The style and lack of quality, the blatant lying, the methods are all the same. All that is different is the goal.
However, it can be granted that Iraq is a controversial matter and undertaking, and its relation to 9/11 and the War on Terror not always clear. A better example of where the "Messenger" is rightly blamed and accountable, not really subject to any dispute, is the ridiculous atmosphere that the immigration reform is being debated within. Namely, the "protests" against the immigration reform are being treated as some kind of civil rights issue, when its about illegality; Period. The American people are wanting something done about massive illegal immigration and a wholesale virtual migration untested across the border. For the press to hesitate to speak of illegal aliens/immigrants, to even suggest that to wish to enforce the law is in some way racist or insensitive, is patent absurdity. And lest the point be missed, is certainly not "just reporting what is happening". No, it is demoguguery, and about an issue that needs to be soberly but firmly debated and dealt with.
After all, its no secret that there is no easy solution. Many businesses want things to stay the way they are regarding cheap labor, and arguably, this may be of greater need than enforceing the law. But all the more reason for the press to tackle this aspect, instead of seeking to demonize those wanting border reform and enforcement. Though it is true that it is activist agitators or foolish officials like Senator Kennedy that have sought to hijack and demogogue the debate by making false and frankly stupid comparisons to the Civil Rights movement, the press corps bears the blame for abetting this and lending it false credence in its reporting. The problem is simple, though the solution and best answer is not: this is about foreign nationals entering America without permission and established process, and in secret -- in short, entering illegally. Many leading newspapers seem to have forgotten that one of the primary duties and responsibilities of the Federal government is controlling and defending the borders. It is not helpful to help poison the atmosphere and distort the already contentious issue being debated in the Congress.
These two examples share something in common: the current tendency of today's "messengers" of the press, and for that matter, party figures, to over-simplify and reduce to a blatantly inaccurate caricture the discourse about serious and complex national and global issues. To these may be added a third example, one from the other side of the coin, which only makes the justness of "blameing the messenger" all the more appropriate. That is the simultaneous failure to truly play "watchdog" and balance to official misconduct and corruption, and instead spilling droves of ink or hours of air time on various and highly particular domestic frivolities or the latest crime/disappearance. Instead of seeking out the truth, whether speaking of the `Left' or `Right' outlets, there is too much eagerness to run with the claim that is the most sensational, and usually the most damaging to the opposite side, without proper deference to the national interest, or even when necessary rooting out and calling attention to the real ongoing legal distortions of politics and authority.
Thus, currently, both as `Reporter' or `Watchdog', this current brand of "Messengers" fully deserves the blame an increasingly disgusted public heaps upon it. The age of "Yellow journalism" fortunately reached an end and turn to the better, and its time this one begin its reform as well.
- Anthony
However, I submit that rarely has a "Messenger" so rated and earned that curse, the proverbial shooting. With the possible and instructive exception of the "Yellow Journalism" that helped trigger the Spanish-American War in the 1890's, more than any other time, today's media does rate "the blame" for much of the ills currently plagueing the national psyche. Protests that they are simply "reporting what is happening, don't blame us" fall flat once it is realized how calculated both the instances of omission of reporting are, and in phraseing of mention and issues.
Two examples will suffice. Regarding the Iraq War, it is demonstrable and well-attested that in many cases, the press corps does not move far from the hotels they are billeted at, and focus on simply obtaining and running footage of the latest bombing or insurgent atttack. Almost no effort is made to describe and report, let alone actually go out and chronicle, the efforts of our troops and Iraqi forces in the rebuilding effort, or to determine the true parameters of unrest, or even more crucially, where enemy activity is weak or or on the wane. It is something of a historical truism that if you say something long enough, it will become self-fulfilling. The media has spent much time "talking down" the Iraq War, and all but excluding tangible reports and coverage of the real successes and progress clearly documented by many military participants and bloggers. They have done this so long, that the insurgent and terrorist activity is not only encouraged, but bolstered. For the coverage has been disgustingly knaive, sometimes going as far as characterizing the terrorist counter-strikes as "freedom fighters". Never mind that these are freedom-fighters that do not hesitate to kill real freedom expression by seeking to intimidate and disrupt votes and elections.
This is not "reporting" -- this is spin, pure and simple. Its as insane as if the U.S. Press had spent all its time covering attrition losses of crewmen on American destroyers to strafing Japanese Zeros during the battle of Guadalcanal, with little coverage of the progress toward the final securing of the island being announced. Whatever one feels about the administration's drive to war --- and this writer holds the White House Public relations style and quality in great disdain - it can rightly be said that with a "Messenger" such as this on the war front, it arguably would be best to have none at all. It is that bad. In their apparent desire to relive the 1960's much of the media moguls have reprenhensibly mis-characterized and talked down Operation Iraqi Freedom to an extent that favors the enemy's goals more than any truth. In the late 1890's yellow journalism sought and unleashed a war for Cuba's future --- in the 2000's an analogous yellow journalism seeks now to lose a war for Iraq's future. The style and lack of quality, the blatant lying, the methods are all the same. All that is different is the goal.
However, it can be granted that Iraq is a controversial matter and undertaking, and its relation to 9/11 and the War on Terror not always clear. A better example of where the "Messenger" is rightly blamed and accountable, not really subject to any dispute, is the ridiculous atmosphere that the immigration reform is being debated within. Namely, the "protests" against the immigration reform are being treated as some kind of civil rights issue, when its about illegality; Period. The American people are wanting something done about massive illegal immigration and a wholesale virtual migration untested across the border. For the press to hesitate to speak of illegal aliens/immigrants, to even suggest that to wish to enforce the law is in some way racist or insensitive, is patent absurdity. And lest the point be missed, is certainly not "just reporting what is happening". No, it is demoguguery, and about an issue that needs to be soberly but firmly debated and dealt with.
After all, its no secret that there is no easy solution. Many businesses want things to stay the way they are regarding cheap labor, and arguably, this may be of greater need than enforceing the law. But all the more reason for the press to tackle this aspect, instead of seeking to demonize those wanting border reform and enforcement. Though it is true that it is activist agitators or foolish officials like Senator Kennedy that have sought to hijack and demogogue the debate by making false and frankly stupid comparisons to the Civil Rights movement, the press corps bears the blame for abetting this and lending it false credence in its reporting. The problem is simple, though the solution and best answer is not: this is about foreign nationals entering America without permission and established process, and in secret -- in short, entering illegally. Many leading newspapers seem to have forgotten that one of the primary duties and responsibilities of the Federal government is controlling and defending the borders. It is not helpful to help poison the atmosphere and distort the already contentious issue being debated in the Congress.
These two examples share something in common: the current tendency of today's "messengers" of the press, and for that matter, party figures, to over-simplify and reduce to a blatantly inaccurate caricture the discourse about serious and complex national and global issues. To these may be added a third example, one from the other side of the coin, which only makes the justness of "blameing the messenger" all the more appropriate. That is the simultaneous failure to truly play "watchdog" and balance to official misconduct and corruption, and instead spilling droves of ink or hours of air time on various and highly particular domestic frivolities or the latest crime/disappearance. Instead of seeking out the truth, whether speaking of the `Left' or `Right' outlets, there is too much eagerness to run with the claim that is the most sensational, and usually the most damaging to the opposite side, without proper deference to the national interest, or even when necessary rooting out and calling attention to the real ongoing legal distortions of politics and authority.
Thus, currently, both as `Reporter' or `Watchdog', this current brand of "Messengers" fully deserves the blame an increasingly disgusted public heaps upon it. The age of "Yellow journalism" fortunately reached an end and turn to the better, and its time this one begin its reform as well.
- Anthony
Thursday, April 06, 2006
America is not `War Weary' but Political Climate Weary
An observation came to mind listening to the Mark Davis show this morning with the forthcoming movie on 9/11 about Flight 93 being discussed. The drama and impact of the movie was mentioned with much speculation about what angst or other emotions it might release or rekindle regarding 9/11 and the War on Terror (as it is called). It was said that "many need to be reminded of WHY". The question was specifically asked "what impact on war-weary Americans will this reminder of what we fight for have?".
I submit that as pretty much any casual conversation among rank-and-file Americans - those in the "real" jobs and day-to-day world - will show, is that America is NOT in fact "war-weary" but weary of the poisonous and vitriolic political climate when a united front against an implacable enemy should be being presented. Nor in these conversations is the easiest path, of simply blaming the war critics and naysayers, always taken. The "reflexive opposition", particularly the "blame America-first" crowd, as it sometimes is called, DO bear a heavy burden. But equally heavy a burden, and heard with increasing frustration, is that born by the administration for failure to provide coherent and consistent answers, and proper transparency, to its overall war strategy. It still seems completely clueless that even many of the Iraq War supporters find the 1-to-1 connection to 9/11 as a justification a bit of a stretch.
This appears especially so in the face of otherwise lackluster approach on matters of border security and appointing strong, firm hands to handle the departments, or to supervise things like the treatment of the prisoners, and last, but never least, to present a compelling and honest case to the public by whatever media is willing.
In short, the `war-weariness' has more to do with the senseless lack of clear direction and absence of feeling of `we know what we are doing'. Its hard to avoid an impression that our response to any given setback or crisis in the war has been purely reactive, and a baffling tendency to never re-evaluate an initial decision or own up to it. This lack of transparency is what then in turn unsettles as reports of corruption, abuse of power, debates whether there is a civil-war or not, etc, grow. And through it all, the Republicans and Democrats can only dance and point fingers at one another with partisan glee at another "got you" successfully pulled off.
Partisanship has always existed, but there seems something particularly craven about it now, in the midst of a war with such reputed `high stakes'. It is the `always moving goal posts' and `never answering candidly when first asked' aspect of the Public Relations which is eroding confidence. Two thousand soldiers have been lost, and contrary to the media's way of couching that, that is a tragic, but indeed small price to pay for a high-stakes war. For WW II stakes, even more could and probably must be, paid. But it is too great a price to pay for an elaborate game of political C.Y.A. and lack of candor. If mistakes have been made, and the Secretary of State's speech the other day finally conceded this, then start fixing them by repenting of what doesn't work, and look at options that probably do, like massive increase in firepower, or more severe covert means. At the same time as owning any mistakes, confront head-on the craven naysayers who criticize, but offer no alternative to fighting the War on Terror but apparent submission and apathy. It is this dichotomy of witlessness from both parties that is the real source of ennui.
Meanwhile, the American people grown increasingly sullen and bitter over the absolute absence of World War II clarity of thought in a war that the government keeps wanting us to believe has stakes as high as the confrontation with Fascism. Many of us need no "reminder" of 9/11, and instead still wait to see truly decisive and engaged response to its deeper sources. If a certain ennui has set in, it is one of resignation -- not lack of an abiding desire to still see Islamofascism direly punished for 9/11 or righteous anger, but a growing sense of despair at our politicians thinking for once of the bigger picture and long range result.
If they want that climate of weariness and despair dispersed, and to revive one of "Can Do!" and "We Are With You!" it would help alot if Washington and the press would start acting the part if stakes are as high as they say.
- Anthony
I submit that as pretty much any casual conversation among rank-and-file Americans - those in the "real" jobs and day-to-day world - will show, is that America is NOT in fact "war-weary" but weary of the poisonous and vitriolic political climate when a united front against an implacable enemy should be being presented. Nor in these conversations is the easiest path, of simply blaming the war critics and naysayers, always taken. The "reflexive opposition", particularly the "blame America-first" crowd, as it sometimes is called, DO bear a heavy burden. But equally heavy a burden, and heard with increasing frustration, is that born by the administration for failure to provide coherent and consistent answers, and proper transparency, to its overall war strategy. It still seems completely clueless that even many of the Iraq War supporters find the 1-to-1 connection to 9/11 as a justification a bit of a stretch.
This appears especially so in the face of otherwise lackluster approach on matters of border security and appointing strong, firm hands to handle the departments, or to supervise things like the treatment of the prisoners, and last, but never least, to present a compelling and honest case to the public by whatever media is willing.
In short, the `war-weariness' has more to do with the senseless lack of clear direction and absence of feeling of `we know what we are doing'. Its hard to avoid an impression that our response to any given setback or crisis in the war has been purely reactive, and a baffling tendency to never re-evaluate an initial decision or own up to it. This lack of transparency is what then in turn unsettles as reports of corruption, abuse of power, debates whether there is a civil-war or not, etc, grow. And through it all, the Republicans and Democrats can only dance and point fingers at one another with partisan glee at another "got you" successfully pulled off.
Partisanship has always existed, but there seems something particularly craven about it now, in the midst of a war with such reputed `high stakes'. It is the `always moving goal posts' and `never answering candidly when first asked' aspect of the Public Relations which is eroding confidence. Two thousand soldiers have been lost, and contrary to the media's way of couching that, that is a tragic, but indeed small price to pay for a high-stakes war. For WW II stakes, even more could and probably must be, paid. But it is too great a price to pay for an elaborate game of political C.Y.A. and lack of candor. If mistakes have been made, and the Secretary of State's speech the other day finally conceded this, then start fixing them by repenting of what doesn't work, and look at options that probably do, like massive increase in firepower, or more severe covert means. At the same time as owning any mistakes, confront head-on the craven naysayers who criticize, but offer no alternative to fighting the War on Terror but apparent submission and apathy. It is this dichotomy of witlessness from both parties that is the real source of ennui.
Meanwhile, the American people grown increasingly sullen and bitter over the absolute absence of World War II clarity of thought in a war that the government keeps wanting us to believe has stakes as high as the confrontation with Fascism. Many of us need no "reminder" of 9/11, and instead still wait to see truly decisive and engaged response to its deeper sources. If a certain ennui has set in, it is one of resignation -- not lack of an abiding desire to still see Islamofascism direly punished for 9/11 or righteous anger, but a growing sense of despair at our politicians thinking for once of the bigger picture and long range result.
If they want that climate of weariness and despair dispersed, and to revive one of "Can Do!" and "We Are With You!" it would help alot if Washington and the press would start acting the part if stakes are as high as they say.
- Anthony
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Public Relations snafus endanger credibility
The shocking news released today that the fourth highest official of the Homeland Security Dept, Deputy Secretary Brian J. Doyle, has been charged with online seduction of a minor, a presumed fourteen-year old girl, serves notice of the continuing Public Relations shipwreck the administration is making. Coming on the heels of the impotent response in rhetoric and action regarding revamping border policy and the baffling spectacle of illegal aliens demonstrating and making demands, this is yet another straw on the strained back of public faith.
As poster `psych' somewhat prophetically pointed out in a commentary on `WSJ urging admin shake-up', the White House and this administration show peculiar disregard for the need to nurture and keep public confidence. As noted, this is especially necessary in a democracy, where so much of direction of the public space is now determined by impressionistic forces like hyperbolic headlines and glitzy talking point banners and `segments' on TV commentator shows.
This makes it all the more important to take pains and care to at least project an impression of calculation, awareness, and competence. After `image disasters' like Katrina, and the failure to fully and honestly grapple with the fact that the search for WMDs in Iraq was hyped, only to prove a no-show, the administration cannot take trust for granted. In a way, it must `re-earn it' and go on the offensive. Not on the offensive in the Rove-style manner of partisan maneuver and clever traps, but on the Public Relations front. Not only must a new attempt to `get the message out' regarding Iraq and other policy trends (like the border and immigration debate currently lighting up the boards this week), but a new message and spokesmen must also be put forth.
It is essential that the semi-defiant and aloof air of unaccountability and even concern with past errors the leadership gives be transformed. Public confidence is being shaken, and arguably, much damage that undoes all the careful and vigorous PR image building that Ronald Reagan did to bring the Republican Party back from Nixon's disgrace and scandal. As all know, Watergate and Viet Nam between them shook public confidence in their government and leaders like few events have. Then the 1980's and the successful winning of the Cold War did much to restore that. In the 1990's despite constant personal scandals, the Clinton Presidency presided with a Republican Congress over an intelligent handling of the economy that let a memorable boom run its course.
Now it seems, in the name of misplaced loyalty, and unthinking stubborness to not appear to admit a mistake or even need for revision, that the adminitration has things on a course to combine a Nixon/Carter impression of both non-transparency, and incompetence. Unfortunately, the pundits are increasingly sounding like "hear nothing, see nothing" hacks, that won't admit they have disappointed the public's confidence in the climate they have allowed to form. Whether the mania of the anti-Bush far left, or the never-say mistake neocon right, both are only able to thrive and hijack the public discourse because NO other voice of reason and leadership speaks up loudly and often. Because of this, thoughtful people are increasingly doubtful they can trust the likes of either CBS or FNC for any accuracy -- their partisan tilt is too obvious, and raises concerns that any truth dissemination, good or bad, is being spun beyond recognition by "handlers" whose only skill is vote manipulation, not inspiration.
So we can read that Iraq-story embedded blogger Michael Yon just now had to point out that:
"Last week, in America, a radio producer for a large syndicated program in the United States called me requesting that I go on the show, a show that has hosted me many times and where I’ve been referred to as, “Our man in Iraq.” But when I said Iraq is in a civil war, that same producer slammed down the phone and, in so doing, demonstrated how much he reveres truth....When the receiver slammed into the phone, the producer revealed himself naked; he was not supporting the troops, nor the Iraqis, but the President."
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/
We saw a similar inexplicable `disconnect' between the obvious need to "speak up" and a bewildering official paralysis in Hurricane Katrina's wake. In this sense, the details of the Hurricane Katrina fiasco hardly matter. Who to blame for what is really immaterial. Instead, it is an instructive warning, and `snapshot' of the general disarray. For the truth is the fiasco is an apt metaphor for the the complete neglect of giving the appearance of command and smooth organization that the administration persists in, whether it be the border, Iraq, or Katrina. Its not a `details' thing -- it is an IMAGE perception, that is mulelishly disregarded in complete defiance of the fact that once a government loses the confidence and trust of its people, it has lost almost everything else by default.
- Anthony
As poster `psych' somewhat prophetically pointed out in a commentary on `WSJ urging admin shake-up', the White House and this administration show peculiar disregard for the need to nurture and keep public confidence. As noted, this is especially necessary in a democracy, where so much of direction of the public space is now determined by impressionistic forces like hyperbolic headlines and glitzy talking point banners and `segments' on TV commentator shows.
This makes it all the more important to take pains and care to at least project an impression of calculation, awareness, and competence. After `image disasters' like Katrina, and the failure to fully and honestly grapple with the fact that the search for WMDs in Iraq was hyped, only to prove a no-show, the administration cannot take trust for granted. In a way, it must `re-earn it' and go on the offensive. Not on the offensive in the Rove-style manner of partisan maneuver and clever traps, but on the Public Relations front. Not only must a new attempt to `get the message out' regarding Iraq and other policy trends (like the border and immigration debate currently lighting up the boards this week), but a new message and spokesmen must also be put forth.
It is essential that the semi-defiant and aloof air of unaccountability and even concern with past errors the leadership gives be transformed. Public confidence is being shaken, and arguably, much damage that undoes all the careful and vigorous PR image building that Ronald Reagan did to bring the Republican Party back from Nixon's disgrace and scandal. As all know, Watergate and Viet Nam between them shook public confidence in their government and leaders like few events have. Then the 1980's and the successful winning of the Cold War did much to restore that. In the 1990's despite constant personal scandals, the Clinton Presidency presided with a Republican Congress over an intelligent handling of the economy that let a memorable boom run its course.
Now it seems, in the name of misplaced loyalty, and unthinking stubborness to not appear to admit a mistake or even need for revision, that the adminitration has things on a course to combine a Nixon/Carter impression of both non-transparency, and incompetence. Unfortunately, the pundits are increasingly sounding like "hear nothing, see nothing" hacks, that won't admit they have disappointed the public's confidence in the climate they have allowed to form. Whether the mania of the anti-Bush far left, or the never-say mistake neocon right, both are only able to thrive and hijack the public discourse because NO other voice of reason and leadership speaks up loudly and often. Because of this, thoughtful people are increasingly doubtful they can trust the likes of either CBS or FNC for any accuracy -- their partisan tilt is too obvious, and raises concerns that any truth dissemination, good or bad, is being spun beyond recognition by "handlers" whose only skill is vote manipulation, not inspiration.
So we can read that Iraq-story embedded blogger Michael Yon just now had to point out that:
"Last week, in America, a radio producer for a large syndicated program in the United States called me requesting that I go on the show, a show that has hosted me many times and where I’ve been referred to as, “Our man in Iraq.” But when I said Iraq is in a civil war, that same producer slammed down the phone and, in so doing, demonstrated how much he reveres truth....When the receiver slammed into the phone, the producer revealed himself naked; he was not supporting the troops, nor the Iraqis, but the President."
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/
We saw a similar inexplicable `disconnect' between the obvious need to "speak up" and a bewildering official paralysis in Hurricane Katrina's wake. In this sense, the details of the Hurricane Katrina fiasco hardly matter. Who to blame for what is really immaterial. Instead, it is an instructive warning, and `snapshot' of the general disarray. For the truth is the fiasco is an apt metaphor for the the complete neglect of giving the appearance of command and smooth organization that the administration persists in, whether it be the border, Iraq, or Katrina. Its not a `details' thing -- it is an IMAGE perception, that is mulelishly disregarded in complete defiance of the fact that once a government loses the confidence and trust of its people, it has lost almost everything else by default.
- Anthony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
