Oh, like the media wasn’t already corrupted before McCain-Feingold was passed; just look at the free pass the Bush Administration got for the last four years as proof. If the media was investigating Bush’s Iraqi WMD claims with half the vim and vigor they poked at the facts of Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore wouldn’t have needed to make the movie to begin with.
Fascinating. The liberals say the conservatives control the media and the conservatives say the liberals control the media.
Should I be surprised?
I think the bias he’s alleging is not pro-conservative, but pro-official-line and pro-laziness. The media is hesitant to challenge the administration’s claims, or even to point out discrepancies between what they say now and what they’ve said in the past - not necessarily because they’re controlled by Republicans, but because they don’t want to (1) challenge The Man or (2) do any research or investigation.
What 527 ads have you seen that aren’t pretty damn obviously advocating for a candidate?
I have to agree with the OP that McCain-Feingold was edentated prior to passage, and this is how. I don’t recall anyone suggesting that it was ever going to be a complete cure for the problem, rooted in the high cost of television advertising and Congress’ refusal to make the nets provide it free or at least at capped cost in compensation for use of the publicly-owned digital-TV broadcast frequencies. Candidates need a ton of money, they do have to spend a lot of time to get it, and they do often have to whore their services to do it.
But IMHO it’s been a step forward, not least in encouraging further efforts. The problem is not only better-defined and more generally understood now, but it’s even partly contained.
BTW, anyone believing that media corruption is a new development should make a more serious study of history. Mr2001, I’d suggest that a lot of what you see from the Beltway media is simple herd mentality, or tribalism - they see themselves as part of the *permanent * power structure in DC, with elected officials being just trained monkeys paraded by for their entertainment. If one of them ever takes them on, as Clinton did by constantly going “over their heads” by appealing to public opinion, or as Dubya has by restricting access to only those who won’t question him and demeaning those who refuse to acquiesce, then the Beltway media cadre has and will use effective means of retaliation. The answer to that for us citizenry is to explore alternate sources of information ourselves, not take Sam and Cokie’s word for everything.
There are plenty of reasons why CFR was a stupid idea, and why it’s no surprise that is has been a predictable failure. However, this is not the point.
I don’t care if CFR was a spectacular success. Even if it had any positive impact (far fetched as this would be) I would still be against it. This law is a blatant violation of the first ammendment protections of free speach.
The word is “access.” Make a source look bad, that source will no longer give you exclusives. Kiss their ass, repeat their spin and you get to stay inside and keep reporting. Happens all the time.
And will your enthusiasm hold when wealthy and middle-class republicans are outspending working-class democrats by a wide margin? When factory owners can contribute but labor unions can’t?
I’d like it if any of those who are satisfied with CFR to address the 3 specific criticisms leveled in the OP.
Uh oh, conflict!
Personally, I have yet to see these “effective means of retaliation”. Bush has been restricting access to only those who won’t question him for what, four years now? And we still have to turn to the Daily Show to see him and his administration called out on their self-contradiction and empty repetition?
Wait a second… McCain-Feingold made the situtation with respect to attack ads WORSE? Whuh? Sure, there have been ads attacking Kerry, and ads attacking Bush, but those ads so far absolutely pale in comparison to the outrageous attack ads of the past.
I challenge you to name the negative ads that comes anywhere near the depths that Jesse Helms’ “White Hands” ad reached in 1990, or the Willie Horton ad of 1988.
I’ll admit, the race isn’t over, and it could well turn very nasty in September and October. But so far, the negative ads haven’t gotten anywhere near the bottom of the barrell. If things get worse, I’ll withdraw these statements, but the idea that McCain Feingold has made negative attacks worse is simply delusional.
I’m sure this is a seriously bad idea, and I’m sure it’ll be shredded in no time, but I’d like to throw it out there.
What if we were to go the other way and make, basically, two rules for the donation process.
-
It is illegal for a campaign/candidate to directly accept any sort of direct payment whatsoever from any group/person/business entity.
-
All donations that to any campaign/candidate must be made completely anonymously to some sort of blind account, and any revelation made of a donation is subject to incredibly severe penalties.
Basically, this would mean that all donations would be totally anonymous. On the one hand, if you really believe in Politician X you can give him all the money you want. On the other hand, you can’t try to claim favors on such a donation, because you’re not allowed to prove it.
Finally, this would eliminate the process where someone donates to both sides in the hopes of hedging their bets and having either winner owe them. In turn, this would cut down on the number of fucking ads we get bombarded with on an hourly basis.
Really, though, what effect do people think this would have? Sure, EvilCo could donate five million dollars to a candidate, but, in theory they wouldn’t be able to prove it. If they did, there’s nothing stopping GoodCo (okay, LessEvilCo) from claiming the same thing…
-Joe
It’s a subjective impression, granted, but mass-media coverage of Bush has seemed to me to be much harsher, questioning, investigating, *reporting * for about the last year or so, or ever since it became impossible to avoid concluding the Iraq WMD stuff was a bunch of lies that had gotten a lot of us killed. Among everything else they are, the Beltway cadre is also human and American (even Jennings and Krauthammer now), and they’re not without *some * sense of integrity. They do need to do a lot more, and you can expect that they will once the “conventional wisdom” (that they obtain by talking with each other over drinks) finally becomes that Bush is doomed and deserves to be.
Their “effective means of retaliation” were certainly used on Clinton, I’m sure you’d agree.
furt, you want answers to the OP questions? Sure:
They add deniability, but not of the plausible kind. Does anyone doubt that the the Swift Boat Vets are working on behalf of Bush, for instance?
Not true, they can say how good the things X is for are just as readily as they can say how bad the things Y is for are, but there’s no doubt who they’re for and against just because of the absence of a name.
See 1. Same thing.
Not at all; I concur entirely with Elvis (though I’d point out it was Reagan who invented “going over the head” of the media).
Those media which have to maintain an appearance of objectivity isn’t going to “call out” anyone. Their methods of spinning are much more subtle: the stories they don’t cover, the quotes they choose, etc. If you sincerely believe that the Washington Press Corps are toadying syncophants eagerly advancing the Bush Agenda, I am afraid we’re not living in the same universe.
Ravenman, the point isn’t that the ads in this one election are worse than any ads in all of history. You can pull out even worse examples if you want to keep going back farther and farther. The point is that IMO the design of the new system encourages negative campaigning.
Yes, and they’ve said so on these boards. But I don’t want to get into specifics of any real-life example.
My point was that a candidate could come out and condemn the ads that tar his opponent, and yet those ads could still run, giving him the best of both worlds: the opponent is a scurrilous cad, but we only know because some outside group told us about. Those of us who are a bit more cynical and “into” politics might think it’s all wink-wink backdoor cooperation, but I’m not sure we’re a majority.
Yes, I suppose. ISTM that it’s a bit harder, though, to praise a candidate without expressly advocating his election than it is to criticize one without advocating his defeat.
I was responding in part to John Mace’s allegation that “The thesis in the OP is not just that the laws don’t work, but that they actually make the situation worse.” I did not mean to put words in your mouth.
So, furt, do you agree that campaign ads are not qualitatively more negative, as in, the ads playing now are not quite as bad as the low blows of the past?
So, do you think that there are quanitiatively more negative ads this year than in the past, as in, a greater number of attack ads? Surely that if the new system actually encourages attack ads, there should be more of them, no?
I suppose that the number of attack ads airing now is a factual question that has an answer somewhere, but I’d like to get your take on this question before looking for an answer.
Well, thanks, but FDR’s “fireside chats” might well qualify, and hell, you could toss in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address as an example. Going over the media’s heads is as old as the media themselves, I’d suggest.
And yet, is there any example of an “independent” group continuing to run an ad that their candidate has denounced, or otherwise suggested that it might be hurting him? Well, we might yet see one, if Bush or any of his spokespersons were ever to denounce the Swiftees’ ad - he quite pointedly won’t.
Lacking data either way, we’ll just have to disagree.
Good luck enforcing that. Pol X goes golfing with fatcat A, sits on a board with B, wants to solicit C’s advice about something … You can put FEC men in the bushes with directional mikes, and there’s still no way of knowing. Consider this clever mechanism.
Define “past.” Are you comparing this to 2000, to all elections ever, what? Many of the dirtiest campaigns precede televison. I trust you see the difference between saying “this is an uglier election than most” and “this is the ugliest there has ever been.”
No, not necessarily.
If the NBA were to move in the three-point arc by six inches, I think we could fairly say that the rule change is encouraging more three-point shots. It does not follow, though, that the very first game after the rule change would see a marked increase in three-point shots. Maybe the players and coaches haven’t fully adjusted their strategy to the new rules. Maybe those two particular teams don’t have good outside shooters. Whatever. I assume you are familiar with the importance of sample size?
I’m not. Define “attack ad.” Do you count how many ads are created, or do you count how often they air? Does radio count for less than TV? Do some kinds of negativity count for more than others? What if the ad is both negative and positive? Et cetera, et cetera. Your assumptions will dictate your answer.
Aye.
File under “players and coaches haven’t fully adjusted their strategy to the new rules.” If Bush was smart he’d distance himself from them while still saying he supports their right to free speech.
I heard on the news that Bush has condemned the Swiftee’s slam ad of Kerry and Kerry has condemned the slam ad regarding Bush’s Natl. Guard service.* Let’s see now if they continue.
- Now let’s see who’s first to argue that they acted first!
Not even close. Bush came out and “condemned” all of the “soft money” ads, while bemoaning his own victim status. He has made no specific condemnation of the Swiftie ads, despite urging from his conscience, Jimminy Cricket-McCain. Nor is he likely to, unless the political windfall he is gaining from the slimey operations of his surrogates should suddenly turn sour.
Kerry, on the other hand, dissed MoveOn.orgs ads about Bush’s ahem! “service” during the 'Nam years, and they disappeared instanter. The Swifty ads are still running.
Glad to help, Snakey. Let me know if you need more information.
Last Tuesday for Kerry, if this even counts:
Has the MoveOn ad stopped at all? It hasn’t run here. As of today (many links), Kerry’s challenging Bush in return:
As of today, Bush is doing even less:
I particularly enjoyed this bit of piety:
One keeps forgetting that not all of you are so lucky as to live in a contested state. Here in the Big Bland, we’re getting them all, so we notice pretty much right away when one disappears.
If GeeDubya (Praise the Leader!) were to condemn the Swiftie’s ad in the same uncertain terms as John McCain, it would vanish immediately. And I would invest my entire fortune in umbrella manufacturing stock, as umbrellas will be fervently sought when pigs fly.
I feel more for McCain. I think the poor sumbitch really believed that his criticism would have effect, that some semblance of shame still lurks in the hearts of the Bushiviks. But they got thier public hug, and public endorsement, and peeled him off like a used condom. They care what people think about McCain, they give a shit what McCain thinks about them.
Time to walk away, John. Long overdue. Get going, you can maybe sing “Born in the USA” duet with The Boss.