Myra MacPherson: The Campaign on a Monday in the Paper of Record
Posted at 9:56 am, April 8th, 2008
While a rather ordinary day for campaign coverage, yesterday was a good one in which to examine the New York Times.
Once one got over the whopper of a front page headline typo in some editions—“When Foreigners by (should be “buy”) the Factory”—there was an arresting lead story that shouted: “Top Clinton Aide Leaving His Post Under Pressure.” Not until the fourth paragraph, and 32 lines into the story, was there a hint that the lobbyist Mark Penn—whose firm’s clients have included Blackwater and Colombia—might be willingly forgotten by his many enemies in the Clinton camp, but not gone.
The Times barely whispered the fact that, despite Penn’s public demotion from chief advisor, “he will continue to do some polling.” The story conveyed little hint of what later publications and television outlets reported; that as a pollster and longtime friend of the Clintons he would still be an important, if somewhat subterranean, part of the campaign.
The Times deserves a plus for doing what used to be routine coverage of campaigns, an attempt to paint a picture of what is going on out there. This was a comparison story of Obama and Clinton crossing paths in Montana and facing the very same audience a few hours apart. It detailed the style and substance as well as the responses of the audience to the two candidates.
Still, what remains missing in most publications is a solid look at voters or potential voters who do not turn out for the speeches and their concerns. This is not to be confused with the examination of polling data or what used to be called the “man in the news” quick look, but a more thorough examination of thoughts and feelings, which entails more than interviewing the party chairmen in a state or city. After all, how many do-the-math Superdelegate charts can a reader absorb or look at in living color on TV?
While we’re at it, wouldn’t it be grand to have a moratorium on the clichés emanating from TV talksters? Like the phrase “Kumbaya” to describe Obama’s appeal and every pugilist phrase from “throw in the towel” to “punch drunk” to “slugfest” to describe the Obama/Clinton primary contest. To say nothing of frisson to describe just about anything in ritzy journals.
Another story on Monday’s Times campaign page was an acknowledgment that cable television has pushed some programs off the air to “make room for newsier programs that treat each night like election night.” This focus on campaign coverage does not add a great deal of depth however, with snippets of speeches and talking heads at the ready as in past formats. And the Times story seemed to just be discovering that candidates are turning up on Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Chris Matthews, with but slight tongue in cheek, took credit for Obama’s rise in the polls for being on his MSNBC college tour show. Matthews then begged for Clinton to come on his show and could not resist his usual listing of friends in high places, such as Clinton campaign guru Howard Wolfson. All this coziness reminds me of independent journalist I.F. Stone’s wonderful line about biographer Theodore White, who wrote glowingly of political figures: “A man so admiring need never lunch alone.”
Then a turn to the op ed page revealed the clompingly unimaginative work of William Kristol, who seems to have never met a clilche he didn’t like. His sketch of a possible scenario for a win in November included “gracious loser” “Democratic lovefest” and, “In politics, as in life, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.”
To end with another cliché, never a dull moment.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:15 pm |
The reader comment sections of the Times online often give a better sense of what the man in the street thinks than do the articles themselves. Granted, these are not random samples, and the same individuals seem to make their appearance day to day. However, you do get to hear the voter speak in his or her own voice. You can tell which commenters watch cable because they tend to spew the same cliches they’ve heard on television. But more interestingly, if you read enough, you start to see a sameness in views that then shows up in the polling numbers.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:47 pm |
Mark Penn is a more colorful character for the Times to work over. For one thing, the poor guy seems to have made everyone mad at him. His personality(or lack of it) is not very important. The fact that his advice to Mrs. Clinton has proven to be dated from previous efforts would have been uncovered by reporters striving to understand how campaign polling works or doesn’t work. While it has been noted that Penn has remained chairman of Burson Marstellar which represents many clients at variance with the Clinton campaign, no one,to my knowledge, has examined Charlie Black, Cain’s advisor, who counts Chalibi has a confidante and whose client base readers might also find instructive. But, the press loves McCain, so don’t hold your breath.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:52 pm |
The NY Times coverage of the Mark Penn “resignation” was a travesty. Bravo to MacPherson for highlighting that. Contrast the Times un-coverage with Keith Oberman on MSNBC. He spent an entire segment exploring the fact that Penn would still be involved in the morning group phone calls, would still be a big deal with the campaign and chalked it all up to another Hilary pretense at change. Isn’t it time for reporters to call a lie a lie??