Post Revisions

With the break looming ahead, and readers looking for more to read, we would like to call attention to the revised, updated and elucidated postings from the past. Following the advice of an anonymous mentor we have strived to make "arguments cleaner, crisper, and better supported by evidence and reason" and have occasionally even added explanatory footnotes! These posts have been marked in the title as "updated" or "revised". Although we have done this for purely altruistic motives, feedback and/or enhancement of grades would be appreciated.

Reading through election coverage in some major US newspapers (online, of course) Leighley's theory about the breakdown of that coverage seems to be confirmed. The largest segment of coverage is stories about the horserace and strategy, such as the following from the Washington Post's election coverage :
Both Parties Sensing Tighter House Races describes the respective chances of each party, and the effects of events like falling gas prices and efforts to focus the campaign on terrorism. There is no discussion of differences between the parties, just a prognostication of their prospects.
And this: In a Pivotal Year, GOP Plans to Get Personal: Millions to Go to Digging Up Dirt on Democrats which describes unadulterated strategy, without any disturbing details about things that matter:
"Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.
The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads."
And what about the Democrats?
"As Republicans try to localize races, Democrats' hopes for the most part hinge on being able to nationalize the election and turn it into a referendum on the Iraq war, President Bush, and the performance of the Republican Congress -- all faring poorly in polls this year."

Meanwhile, in the latest case of campaign issues taking control of media coverage of a race, defined by Leighley as issues which do not have any inherent policy relevance and are only issues in the context of a campaign:
The New York Times reports on the latest blunders of George Allen's senate race. The headline should have read "Senator Manages to Destroy his Re-election Prospects by Insulting Every Ethnic Group Imaginable". The Washington Times takes a strategic perspective on this as well:"Allen urged to focus on successful record", I guess instead of trying to think of more creative slurs.
Other stories tended to focus on how candidates' race would influence a congressional campaign, or how Democrats have realized the importance of emphasizing faith. Not exactly in depth on the issues. On the other hand coverage seemed to be objective.
In contrast, the blogosphere seems even less substantive. Daily Kos , for example, has a stronger focus on the numbers than the mainstream media. Perhaps because their audience is largely people who have made up their mind, instead of providing analysis and discussion of issues, posts just give the latest poll numbers and predict Democratic takeover. Other posts merely celebrate Republican gaffes. Overall, probably not the best way to get informed of policy debate. Same goes for other blogs such as Atrios: insults yes, deep analysis less.
Personally, I recommend The New Republic.

Thoughts on Government Secrecy (Updated)

A few thoughts prompted by Steven Aftergood's lecture: The issues of secrecy and classification of information by the government are complex and cannot be simply categorized in black and white. Government secrecy is often a necessary evil. For although it minimizes government transparency and the oversight and debate which are necessary in mantaining a free and democratic society, it can also be crucial to security of sensitive issues (such as weapons technology or military planning.) The trick is to balance the need for legitimate secrets with the goal of eliminating illegitimate secrecy (much of which is politically motivated or bureaucratically institutionalized.) Since it is difficult to enforce legislation on this issue by its very nature, the best guarantee for ensuring an open government is through an executive branch which has a strong commitment to openness. That is true regarding the government. In terms of the public, it can also be argued that there is a need for better legal guidelines as to what secrets should and must be kept secrets and which should be part of free speech rights guaranteed by the first amendment. Although logic dictates that publicizing information that would harm American citizens should be regulated, there exist few specific guidelines in this area. Again, this is an issue of balancing the demands of a free press with the need for sensible restrictions.

Revised and Elucidated: Blog Comments Comment

Daily Kos comments on the September 12 primary elections were, overall, monolithic. With only the one exception -- a comment sympathetic to liberal republican Lincoln Chafee, the overall sentiment of the remaining fifty seven comments is expressed in the following comment heading: "So it's basically a win in Arizona, lose in Rhode Island?". In other words, Daily Kos, a liberal blog, is celebrating the victory of a conservative Republican in his Arizona congressional primary and mourning the loss of a right wing senatorial candidate in Rhode Island to incumbent Lincoln Chafee, a Republican who voted against the Iraq war, against tax cuts, and supports abortion rights and other progressive causes. I am left feeling puzzled. Okay, I say to myself, this is merely another example of party politics. Daily Kos bloggers are ignoring primary candidates' positions on issues in the hope of having a Democrat win the general election. There is what to be said about the practice of placing primacy of party over policy, but something else here still doesn't sound right...
Were'nt these the guys who supported Howard Dean?*

*A popular "netroots" candidate in the 2004 democratic presidential primary. While gaining the support of the internet blogger community, it was widely accepted that he did not have a broad enough base to win in a general election.

Press Conference (Revised)

Today's "press gaggle" did not discuss any major issues facing the nation. Instead the focus was on the details of the President's schedule for the day. The following is a fairly representative quote:

Q Can you talk about the unscripted stop, the unscheduled stop last night
to the firehouse and the memorial site? When was it planned, and just tell us a
little about the specifics behind that?
MR. SNOW: Honestly, I don't know. I mean, I knew it had been in the works. This is a site that formally opened today and had just been previewed yesterday morning by some of the family members.
This had been organized in part by family members of September 11th.
Q Why was it not on the schedule? Why was it a surprise?
MR. SNOW: Because we wanted to add some spice and zest to your life.

By responding to this question with humor, Snow neutralized the issue, forcing an end of the discussion. Perhaps this was the right response to an overly zealous reporter, eager to find a story on an otherwise slow news day. But what if, on the other hand, this reporter was on to something. Maybe this was an example of Bush using 9/11 for his own political gain. By failing to take the question seriously, Snow silenced this reporter. Maybe Snow is withholding information from the public in order to protect the President. I guess we'll never know. But regardless, this shows how an effective press secretary can take control of the debate, and decide what subjects deserve to be discussed.

Corporate Media Control

The problem with complaining about how corporate control of the media tilts media coverage to things that people want to see is this: if the media were covering that which the public should be seeing instead of that which the public is interested in seeing, the public would still not see what it should be. Unless we are seriously going to consider torturing all those who do not watch the evening news, or (at risk of repeating myself) eliminating all channels besides C-Span, people will continue to watch what they enjoy. In other words, making news coverage less interesting to the public will only have the effect of ensuring that less of the public will view the news. Supply of more good news sources will not create more demand for good news. This point is documented effectively by The Onion in an article headlined "C-SPAN Ratings Up Following Addition Of 'The House Of Representatives Dancers'". Short of that it seems unlikely to see such a rise in the short term, the obvious benefit in obtaining C-Span 3 notwithstanding. For further evidence that people watch things they like see the latest Nielsen ratings which do not contain a single PBS program!

"Issue" Is in the Eye of the Beholder

It turns out its been one big deception. According to a report in today's Washington Post, everything the right has claimed to believe in all these years are not even issues!

"If Chafee falls, he will be the second sitting senator to lose a primary this
year. But unlike Democrat Joseph I. Lieberman in Connecticut, whose defeat is
attributed to his outspoken support for the war, Chafee's problems have little
to do with where he stands on issues. Rather, they are rooted in his
contemplative, consensus-building style, an aberration in the current bitterly
partisan climate.
By contrast, Laffey has an assertive, tough personality. He
contends that Chafee's independence has made him irrelevant, and that his
unpredictable voting patterns suggest a political identity crisis, as if the
senator can't make up his mind."

Could the Post really believe that Chafee is not being challenged because of "where he stands on the issues"? I quote:

"He opposes the war, backs abortion rights and other liberal social causes, and is an ardent environmentalist", the article goes on to state. Later on:"He opposed Samuel A. Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court and voted against the Bush tax cuts."

To paraphrase a former president, I guess the issue is the meaning of the word issue.