I just listened to the “This American Life” episode that offers a retraction of their story about factory conditions at Foxconn, the Chinese factory that makes so many Apple products. it is a brilliant piece of journalism. It is absolutely worth a listen. Me, I listened while babyproofing the deck!
Random comments from a professor of politics and government on the events of the day.
I teach in the Politics and Government department at Illinois State University, in Normal, IL, And yes: it's pretty normal here. Thanks for asking. Ask me anything
I teach in the Politics and Government department at Illinois State University, in Normal, IL, And yes: it's pretty normal here. Thanks for asking. Ask me anything
March 31, 2012
The “This American Life” Retraction
March 28, 2012
Feeding Frenzy
Let me offer a brief moment of fellow feeling for two people who are not high on people’s “friend” lists right now, and for another group that is enjoying a great deal of sympathy but is also facing a great deal of pressure right now.
The people/groups in question are Trayvon Martin’s family, Jason Russell (of KONY 2012 (in)famy), and yes, George Zimmerman.
Don’t get me wrong: I think Zimmerman is in the wrong in Trayvon Martin’s death, and Jason Russell brought the attention he got on himself. Trayvon Martin’s family has been thrust into the spotlight quite unexpectedly.
But whatever the circumstances, I do think we ought to note that all of them have been subjected to a media feeding frenzy that none of them were ready for. Trayvon Martin’s family went from grieving the loss of their brother/son/cousin to symbols of racial politics … in milliseconds. Jason Russell hoped for some attention … and then became a symbol of everything evil about western colonial legacies in, again, microtime. And even if you believe, as I do, that George Zimmerman ought to face a jury for what he did to Trayvon Martin, it is also true that he, too, has been turned into a symbol by the modern media frenzy—an evil symbol of racialist abuse according to most; a victim of leftist politics according to others.
My point in this brief comment is this: no one—and I mean NO ONE—is ready for the shift from ordinary life to center of the media world that can happen today in fractions of seconds. No one’s life—and I mean NO ONE’S LIFE—can sustain the kind of scrutiny these people face … all of a sudden. No one’s psyche—and I mean NO ONE’s PSYCHE—can see itself turned from whatever self image it has to a symbol and a pawn in a media frenzy determined by how fast one group can tweet or blog or link some “insight” about the case.
It would be nice if we would remember that Trayvon Martin’s family, and Jason Russell, and yes, even George Zimmerman, are people, not props in a media firestorm. We won’t, of course. In fact, all George Zimmerman can hope is that something outrageous happens soon, so the feeding frenzy will focus its attention on the “new” thing, as it has focused on him after Jason Russell and Robert Bales (the accused murderer in Afghanistan). Which is really quite a thing, if you think about it.
March 2, 2012
On Legacies (and Andrew Breitbart)
When Andrew Breitbart suddenly died, political blogs were filled with the news. This makes sense: he was an important figure in contemporary political life.
But, importantly, many if not most of the comments I saw made quick mention of their decision and/or belief that any comments about Breitbart ought to acknowledge that he was a human being with family and friends who deserved to be treated with dignity and respect—despite, the blogs either said or implied, the fact that Breitbart himself treated no one with dignity and respect.
Which, if you think about it, is a hell of a thing. The best thing even Breitbart’s defenders could say about him was that his wife and children loved him. Which is great and all, but really speaks to a profound change in the way our society seems to work.
See, for much of world history one’s legacy mattered. People wanted to be thought of well by the generations that followed. At one extreme, this led conquering monarchs to slaughter untold masses in grabs for glory, or cruel kings to enslave thousands to build monuments to the king’s wonderfulness. (Think the Pyramids of Giza as one obvious example.)
But far more commonly the desire to be remembered well led people to try to lead good lives based on helping their family and/or their community be a better place. This kind of concern for legacy is reflected when a bench in a park gets named for someone who took extra time every day to feed the ducks in cold snaps, or when a school takes the name of an honored graduate. It is why life in the places we live gets better … if it does.
Unfortunately, many of us have lost this sense of living for one’s legacy. All that matters is the now: the most expressive, most profitable, most dramatic presentation of self possible. In a choice between being the quiet person who takes time to clean up litter in the park everyday, or being Snooki, whose only talent seems to be an unashamed willingness to be filmed while behaving badly, many—too many—people take the Snooki way.
This was Andrew Breitbart’s way. He did not care if something was true or not. He did not care if innocent, good people got crushed as he pursued his agenda. All he cared about—at least in his public persona—was advancing his cause.
Now I know that he would say he had to do it: that the left is so vile and so hateful that he had no choice. I know he would say that in such a world “facts” are fungible in the service of “good” as he defines it.
But I don’t buy it. We all have choices. Breitbart chose to pursue a politics that was nasty and mean—not just in the policies he advocated, but also in the ways he pursued them.
Whatever his personal legacy, Andrew Breitbart’s political legacy is having made American politics worse. His is the legacy of a man who, at the end of a significant public life, has to be remembered in spite of what he did, not because of what he did.
Let the rest of us do better.
February 28, 2012
Remember When Romney Was Inevitable?
As we have the Michigan and Arizona primaries today, I thought we should think back to those halcyon days of, oh, seven weeks ago or so (!) when everybody who was anybody saw a Romney runaway with the Republican presidential nomination.
I, too, argued that Romney was likely to win—a position I still take. He has more organization than anyone else, and historically it has been organization, matched with money, that sustains candidates in long, drawn out fights.
But I didn’t argue the “easy victory” point. I didn’t argue it for a simple reason: NO ONE HAD VOTED YET.
Media and political commentators love to “declare” things well before they happen—such declarations make them seem important and wise. The thing is, military officers are taught a lesson that is entirely applicable to political campaigns. No battle plan, commanders are taught, survives first contact with the enemy because the enemy gets a say in how the battle unfolds.
Much the same is true in elections: no assumptions survive first contact with the voters because it is the voters, not the commentators, who determine who wins and loses elections.
So remember: no matter what commentary one hears tonight, the primaries won’t be over—even if the talking robots on CNN, MSNBC and FOX say they are. To quote the inimitable Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over ‘til it’s over.”
February 7, 2012
The Sound of Silence
Shhhh. Hear that? That’s right: you don’t really hear anything. It’s as if the presidential campaign is on hold.
It isn’t, of course. There are elections in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado today. Missouri is having a so-called “beauty contest” that will register voters’ support for a candidate but which will not lead to the selection of any actual delegates to the convention; both Minnesota and Colorado are have what amounts to straw polls before selecting delegates in March.
Notably, Rick Santorum is likely to “win” both Missouri and Minnesota today. Meaning that, regardless of delegate counts, he is likely to end today having won about as many states as Romney has.
And no one cares.
We find ourselves in this absurd situation because of the intersection of two remarkable trends, both of which deserve more comment than they are receiving.
Trend 1 is the Republican Party’s desperate effort to beat back the tide of front-loading that has shaped most recent election contests. More and more states have pushed the dates of their primaries forward, trying to have their citizens have a chance to influence the selection of the party’s nominee. Think about it: lots of people want the race to be over ALREADY, when all of 5 states have voted. To have a voice, states have to schedule their primaries early in the campaign season. So states have been changing their dates earlier and earlier in the campaign cycle.
The Republican Party, by contrast, wants to pace the elections out a bit. So it has decided to sanction those states that schedule primaries before March by not seating delegates elected from early voting states (other than those from Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, 1/2 of Florida’s delegates, and Nevada). Sound absurd? It is. But it’s true.
Trend 2 is the media’s insistence that it is the story. CNN, FOX and the other media covering the election seem to believe that they “call” the election—that it’s up to them to decide who wins and who loses the nomination. And right now they have a narrative, an explanation for what is going to happen and why. It’s the “Romney is inevitable” narrative.
So what is the media to do when two of three states holding elections in a given day don’t comply with the “Romney is inevitable” narrative? Well that’s easy:
You (don’t) hear it everywhere.
January 4, 2012
Whatever Happened To???
#Occupy?
A little Christmas; a little electoral politics; a little winter break on various college campuses … it has seemingly disappeared. At least in the media.
We are the least capable multi-taskers in the world: easily distracted by “next,” and easily forgetting that which seemed to be end-of-the-world vital just moments before.
No wonder the powers-that-be never fear real challenge.
December 21, 2011
Irony, Access and the Decline of Good Political Interviews
One of the remarkable things about watching media members interview politicians these days is just how bad the questions are. The journalist inevitably starts with a softball set up question that allows the candidate to offer some version of their stump speech for an answer. The journalist either follows up with a second softball on the same topic, or moves on. Notably, the more outrageous the candidate’s claim, the more inclined the journalist is to just move on … to not challenge the candidate’s comment.
There are lots of reasons for this—journalists are for the most part generalists, for example, and so usually lack the technical knowledge they would need to challenge the candidate’s comments. This is one of the reasons Newt Gingrich gets away with a lot of the twaddle he spews: the people asking him the question don’t know why his statements are nonsense (e.g., the Palestinians are an “invented” people), and so let him slide.
But I want to suggest another reason why so many journalists’ questions have gotten so lame: the problem of access.
See, for a long time elected leaders and other politicians struggled to get noticed by the media, especially television. They had to subject themselves to rigorous questioning and meaningful dialogue with reporters if they wanted to get access to television and thus an opportunity to promote their agenda. Engagement was the price of access—politicians had to agree to real interaction with the media if they wanted access to that most precious of resources: TV time.
Today, the situation is entirely reversed. Things like internet video streaming, the ubiquity of blog posts, and the emergence of multiple and niche “news” networks desperate to fill programming time in an over-saturated market have worked to create a world in which pretty much anyone can get access to some means to advance their message. There is intense competition for the good “get”: the interview that will draw attention to the media source. In other words, the world of access has been turned upside down: where politicians once clamored for attention, and were willing to face real questions in order to earn their way into the spotlight, now politicians and other leaders are in a position to choose which, if any, outlets in which they wish to advance their message. Leaders choose journalists and networks, not the other way around.
One consequence of this has been the rise of “pet” media. For conservatives, it’s FOX: once FOX is on your side, you know FOX will never ask a serious question or otherwise challenge your use of their network to spin your agenda. MSNBC does something similar with liberal politicians. The price of “winning” an interview is to softball it once you get it. It is the politician setting the tone of the conversation, not the journalist.
And what happens if you transgress? If you are a journalist who gets a good interview but then actually follows up with tough questions, etc? Well, it’s obvious: you lose access. The political leader and all their supporters never go on your show or talk to you or your colleagues again. They withdraw that which is precious—access—and leave you with a void to try to fill with content.
Which you of course are reluctant to face. And your producer or editor is even less more reluctant to face, since they have to pay the unit’s bills. So the message from the top is clear: play along. Otherwise we lose money—and you lose your job.
So we get wussy questions followed by bad answers followed by distractions and irrelevancies. Ironically, increased opportunities to explore the political universe has made it possible for politicians to seemingly be on the air all the time, but never to say anything meaningful.
Which is exactly how they like it.
November 13, 2011
Oh Puhleeze! (PP) -- More Americans Than Chinese Struggling To Put Food On The Table (What???? PP)
Nearly 20 percent of Americans say they’ve had trouble putting food on the table in the past 12 months, up from nine percent in 2008, the Gallup report found. That’s compared to six percent of Chinese respondents, down from 16 percent in 2008.
As a trained social scientist, I can’t even begin to explore the multiple ridiculousnesses of this one.
—The headline says “more” Americans than Chinese. Well, folks, there’s virtually nothing on the planet involving demographics in which Americans have “more” of than China does. This is due to the simple demographic fact that there are 4x more Chinese than there are Americans. Nobel Prizes? Yes: Americans have more. People? No.
—How, exactly, does one do a real public opinion survey in CHINA? Do you randomly call 600,000,000 rural peasants on their cell phones? Wander around doing focus groups in a police state? Herman Cain complained that people were comparing apples to oranges when they criticized his tax plan. This one is apples to quasars. Any claim that ANY percent of Chinese believe thing X is highly suspect.
—Besides, the findings don’t even pass the smell test. There are hundreds of millions—600? 700? 500?—of Chinese people living on tiny wages—$2 a day and less in many cases. People have been displaced in their millions, by earthquakes, dams and official corruption. And we are seriously supposed to believe that MORE Americans are struggling than Chinese people are?
The tale this story tells may serve a political agenda. I may be sympathetic to parts of that agenda. But I went to methods class—a lot of them. And this is just too ridiculous to ignore.
(Source: azspot)
November 3, 2011
The creativity of media reading press releases: on Conan O’Brien’s announcement that he will officiate a gay marriage on his show.
h/t: AM
RSS feed: http://politicalprof.tumblr.com/rss
1 of 5
Next page
-
This Week in War. A Friday round-up of what happened and what’s been written in the world of war and military/security affairs this week. It’s a...
-
So Who Wants To Open A Soda Speak-Easy When Bloomberg's Soda Ban Goes Into Effect?
We’ll make sure the Bull’s on the take while we serve up...
-
“Republicans are so preoccupied with defining the Constitution in terms that give effect to the Tenth Amendment allocation of unspecified powers to...”
-
Openly gay Latina wins Texas congressional seat
(Courtesy Mary Gonzalez)
Mary Gonzalez told them she was the best candidate to...
-
Like political kudzu, no matter how many times they have been destroyed, birthers...
-
A Church posts a billboard apology to North Carolinians for “judgmental, deceptive, manipulative actions” done against the...
-
