 Point. Click. Search. Contents: Archives:
| ||
 by Bob Somerby bobsomerby@hotmail.com E-mail This Page  A companion site. | ||
|
 Caveat lector 8 June 2000 Our current howler (part II): Focused group
How big a deal was the Gore announcement? Exciting words were flying around as the pundits all told their One Story (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/7/00). Gore was undergoing a "make-over," being "reinvented;" the campaign had devised "yet another roll-out." But it didn't seem like that big a deal when Susan Page (and some others) explained it. Gore would spend the week "promoting his own family-related proposals," Page said, "including a welfare-to-work initiative." His campaign was planning "a week of events designed to portray Gore in more positive and personal terms." It didn't seem like such a Biggie, and it wasn't just Page who found the news underwhelming. At the New York Times, James Dao was filling in for Katharine Seelye, and as a result, the spin-quotient was DOWN. Dao managed to describe the plan for Gore's week without having a wholescale conniption:
It was paragraph 7 of an article describing Gore's speech on Memorial Day. And there was rare good news for New York Times readers: They got to read hunks of what Gore actually said without first having Primal Spinner "Kit" Seelye hammer Gore's words into "perspective." But there was one other Washingtonian who was in sync with Fineman's story, and that was Jim Nicholson (RNC). The RNC also was pushing "reinvention." Carl Cameron discussed it on Friday:
Something which Cameron didn't mention: Right on the RNC press release, they quoted from Fineman's Newsweek article. Yep. Great minds were very much thinking alike, inspired by Fineman's excited treatment. On Tuesday morning, Don Imus, citing Fineman's article, brought up Gore's "makeover" with Jeff Greenfield and Jonathan Alter (neither scribe played along with the concept). On Wednesday night, Brian Williams improved Fineman's article a bit, right on his eponymous News:
Williams sounded sad as he asked the question. Actually, it was Williams' viewers we ought to pity; the Newsweek article hadn't said a word about any such focus group testing. Panetta didn't have the article to check, so he accepted Williams' account of the piece and lightly scolded Gore for the practice. Then our friend Nelson Warfield gave a stirring speech; Bush "is comfortable with who he is," Nelson said. We'll tell you, there wasn't a dry eye in our house. But Uncle Nelson had also said this:
Whoa! Nelson was on-message, RNC style, two days before the RNC got there! At any rate, Williams had added the concept of "focus groups" to the makeover/reinvention/new-rollout blend. In fact, there weren't any focus groups in the Newsweek piece. But they belonged there. So Williams just "invented" them. Let's review. On Monday, Fineman's article said Gore was having a "makeover." Imus blabbed the concept on Tuesday. Tuesday night, Fineman—on The News—rattled off Gore's "reinventions." Wednesday night, Williams had focus groups mixed in the stew, and Nelson had "Version 6.0" up and running. Gergen and Roberts were right on message on Friday night and Sunday afternoon. But was Gore's week fairly described as a "makeover?" Was it fairly described as "reinvention?" It seemed a bit overwrought to us; making a few biographical speeches is hardly a shocking campaign strategy. But we wouldn't mind the overstatement so much if the overstatement were evenly parceled. If the pundits overreacted to Bush the same way, we'd say they were hyperbolic but fair. But uh-oh! Gergen said something while playing on Hardball Friday night that made our analysts utter low mordant jibes. Tomorrow: Bush wasn't "reinventing himself." Bush was "moving back to the center!"
The Daily update (6/8/00) Standard for the f-word: We'd heard of the column about Dr. Laura. And sure enough—we found it on the Journal's editorial page, written by author Harry Stein. He'd stirred up our analysts with this:
We haven't studied the Dr. Laura dispute, but we thought Stein's critique was worth comment. Harry!! Where are the analytical skills? Things that "deviate from the norm" aren't necessarily "deviant." For example: Orthodox Judaism "deviates from the norm." Getting a doctorate "deviates from the norm." But it would be odd to think that you'd call those things "deviant." The majority of things that "deviate from the norm" wouldn't normally be referred to as "deviant." This simple point would occur to anyone—if our society valued clear, precise thinking. But, next time you enter one of our giant bookstores, look for the section on "Logic/analysis/thought." You'll note that it doesn't exist. Our bookstores feature sections on cooking, exercise, investing—even history. But our culture has long since stopped believing that thought is a skill worth pursuing. (If you doubt it, take a college logic course. Prepare to be driven mad with irrelevance.) It was once assumed that clear thought was a valuable skill. The idea has long since fled the earth. Stein's piece took us back to a Weekly Standard editorial entitled "Al Gore's New Defender." Robert Parry had penned a Washington Monthly piece critiquing the "Love Canal" flap. The Standard bashed poor Bob pretty good. They ended their rumination like this:
Actually, it pretty much does. The word "found" is used in many different ways—and it's not interchangeable with "discovered." For example: Reread the first paragraph of this "Update." Look at the word "found" in that passage:
Did anyone think, when they read that passage, that we were claiming to have "discovered" the column on Dr. Laura? Of course not. "Found" and "discovered" are not interchangeable—except when you've got spin to sell. Logic courses should teach students that. But when is the last time a college prof helped tidy our poor muddled discourse? You May Hate Dr. Laura, But Don't Try to Censor Her Al Gore's New Defender |