HEY, RUBES! Our young analysts spit-took their bagels when Herbert praised Clintons fine run: // link // print // previous // next //
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2008
The Project for Excellencenot: Howard Kurtz makes a few minor points in his report in this mornings Post. But our analysts spit-took their bagels when they fell upon this:
Thats an unfortunate reference by Kurtzto an unfortunate study.
Whats wrong with Kurtzs reference? The Pew report is almost totally useless, but it doesnt even purport to be a study of media bias. On last Thursdays NewsHour, Jeffrey Brown asked Pews Mark Jurkowitz about that very point:
If Brown had asked a follow-up question, we might have been able to sort through this murky answer, gaining knowledge about what this study does purport to measure. (Sorrythis complex and nuanced answer.) But Brown had two other guests this nightand instead of questioning Jurkowitz further, he moved on to ask irrelevant questions of those irrelevant guests. Jurkowitz is brightand he might have shed light. But he got no further queries.
This morning, Kurtz makes a casual conflation, acting as if the Pew study is a study of bias. But Jurkowitz, despite all the nuance, did at least seem to reject that conflation: The one thing that's important to say is, although terms like negative and positive coverage seem loaded, we're not saying that's the same thing as unfair coverage. Presumably, that comes close to saying that this study is not a measure of bias. A similar statement is found near the end of the studys first page. (See the penultimate paragraph.)
What then does this study measure? As weve noted many times in the past, its almost always hard to say when Pew presents one of its studies. In truth, these studies are far from excellent. Typically, they do a very poor job of explaining what it is theyre trying to measureand they typically lack even basic transparency. As always, this new study does a very poor job of explaining what is meant by negative coverage (and positive coverage). This is as close as it comes:
Pew examines not just whether assertions in stories are positive or negative, but also whether they are inherently neutral. We dont have the slightest idea what that puzzling statement means. Nor are we reassured by the self-parodic claim that negative assertions in a story must outweigh positive assertions by a margin of at least 1.5 to 1 for that story to be deemed negative. Indeed, since Pew provides no examples of negative assertions at all, we have no way to examine statements or stories which Pew has judged to be negative (or positive). What does a negative assertion look like? How about a full-blown negative story? Pew provides examples of neither. For that reason, we have little idea what these terms actually mean.
According to Pew, McCain has been hit with a bunch of negative stories in the six weeks under review (September 6 through October 16). But what do these negative stories look like? In the age of the simple electronic link, its incredible that Pew provides no examples. Question: Does a purely factual story about falling poll numbers count as a negative story? Theres no way to tell from Pews report. In fact, theres almost no way to tell anything at all from the report Pew has posted.
These Pew reports let the insider press corps pretend that it somehow keeps tabs on itself, through its various pipe-puffing adjuncts. In practice, these reports serve one main purpose; they give us a rough idea of what the insider press corps thinks of as excellence. The press corps standard for that is quite low. But then, you may have known that.
HEY, RUBES: Here at THE HOWLER, we have no real idea why Bob Herbert says what he says this morning. The heyday of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove is over, he says in this premature piece.
Were not sure we agree with that. In 1993, the heyday of GOP attack politics began on the day Bill Clinton took office; similar efforts will occur if Obama reaches the White House. We dont know why Herbert thinks that such attacks wont work again, given the fullness of time. Its true: Washington power wont hunt Obama in quite the way it hunted Bill Clintonat least, not in the short run. (In the short run, Washington power is too concerned with its 401Ks. Finally! Something they care about!) But will power chase him down in the end? Will past techniques prove effective again? Herbert seem to say that they wont.
Why wont Rove-style attacks work again? In this passage, Herbert defines the glorious day thats unfolding:
Sorry, but that seems pretty sillyand not just because Obama is out there attacking McCain every day. (Theres no reason why he shouldnt.) In fact, this campaign has been stunningly substance-freelargely thanks to a feckless press corpsand very few voters are manning the ramparts, demanding to be informed more. On September 15, when the nations finances melted away, McCain was slightly ahead in some national pollsa tribute, in part, to those old-fashioned politics. Herbert is writing a paean to New Glory Daysa paean which makes little sense.
But good God! We really had to laugh out loud when the scribe began to gush about the uplifting Hillary Clinton! Yes, Sarah Palin has been a horrible candidatethe worst ever on the national stage, in our own estimation. But how much do pseudo-liberals love to attack her? This passage made us throw our heads back and roar with mordant laughter:
Truly, thats astounding. Surely, your country will never prosper in the hands of progressives like these.
Hillary Clinton helped define the new political atmosphere with her own historic run for the White House! Can no one recall what Herbert said about Clinton in real time? What he said, rightly or wrongly?
On January 26, Herbert went way off his meds, writing a piece about Clinton that we regarded as deeply unwise (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/29/08). You may have judged that column differently. But heres a key chunk of what Herbert said:
We thought Herberts column was deeply unfair, and remarkably foolish; he even resorted to a type of nut-picking, quoting a stupid comment someone wrote on a mainstream news blog, then acting like it was Clintons fault. You may have judged that column differently. But go ahead! Just laugh out loud as he tells you today that Clinton helped define this uplifting new atmospherein contrast to Vile Palin, of course. Oh by the way: Just four days earlier, Herbert had written this about the uplifting Clinton:
Where was the uplifting Clinton then? Where was the uplifting Clinton in March, when Herbert wrote a column (Confronting the Kitchen Sink) which went after the trash-and-thrash tactics that helped Senator Clinton defeat [Obama] in Ohio and Texas? As he closed that particular column, Herbert described the way Clinton was helping define the new political atmosphere with her own historic run:
B-Herb! You wrote that this year!
On balance, we disagreed with Herberts criticisms in that column; you may have viewed them differently. But in real time, where was the glorious Clinton, the one about whom Herbert gushes today? In real timein Herberts actual columnsthat person didnt exist. Even as late as Memorial Day, Herbert opened a column in the following manner. In this piece, he approvingly banged the drums for one of the most appalling attack-attack-attacks weve ever seen dumped on a candidate. We thought this was inexcusable stuff (though KeithO had pimped it much harder):
Sadly, that was the start of the column in which Herbert wet his pants aboutwell, lets recall how Clinton was helping define the new political atmosphere with her own historic run. After praising Bidens decency, Herbert declaimed like this:
In our view, Herbert played the fool that dayand hed had four days to reconsider the nonsense surrounding that particular attack-attack-attack against Clinton. (Ugly nonsense Obamas campaign had pushed, attack-attack-attacking its foe.)
In short, Herbert trashed Clintons conduct and character all year longcrying, wailing, imagining, dreaming, promoting the ugliest possible charges. We thought his claims were usually wrong; you may have judged them differently. But today, he treats you like a gang of foolsas our lords so typically do. Today, he throws you Scalp of Palinusing the ploy to reverse himself about Vile Clintons vile conduct.
Suddenly, Clintons a force of lightunlike his new pleasing miscreant.
Here at THE HOWLER, we dont think very highly of Herbert, although wed like to think different. In the 1990s, he ran with powerran with the crowdtrashing Bill Clinton for his endless vile conduct. And sure enough! By the end of the decade, he even seemed to be working hard to put George Bush in the White House. Herbert should crawl on his knees to explain. Instead, he still plays you like toys.
Hey, rubes! Herberts column today is almost spectacularly disingenuous. But then, so was the garbage he pimped about Gore as the worlds destiny hung in the balance. Progressive interests simply cant prosper with leaders like this in our march.
Here comes an unflattering view: Herbert and Rich sold your interests in the 1990s, caving to powerto Rove and Atwater. Remind us again, so were all reassured: Why wont these gentlemen flip-flop again, when power comes to callas it will?
A postscript: If even one of these guys would explain his past conduct, wed treat him like a conquering hero. But have you ever seen a single scribe explain why he, and the rest of the gang, did the sick things they all did in that era? Their wars have all been disappearedand as of today, with this new bright column, so has Vile Clintons more recent vile conduct. Attack-attack-attack? Its all so yesterday, Herbert explainshaving attack-attacked this whole year.