By Jonathan Miller, on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM ET
And now from the other side of The New York Times, here’s CAMERA:
In the New York Times’ front page story today about a volunteer national service program in Israel, reporter Jodi Rudoren notes that “62 percent of the Arab public backed the program.”
It is curious, then, that 82 percent of the article’s quoted words from Arabs are spoken against national service. (This figure actually understates the disproportion. It includes everyone quoted except for two Israeli professors, both of whom highlight only Arab perspectives against national service. And it does not include the quoted words of posters that likewise argue against the program.)
The problem here is not that Rudoren provides fake quotes. Of course she doesn’t. It’s an issue of framing. Even though most Arabs in Israel support national service, the piece is written in a way that leaves readers with an overwhelming and predominant sense of Arab opposition to the program.
Readers hear from a single young Arab girl, Nagham Ma’abuk, who supports and participates in the national service program. But her voice gets lost in a staccato of quotes by opponents of integration and national service: Ehab Helo comes out against integration with the state. Radical Arab parliamentarian Hanin Zoabi jumps on the opportunity to level sharp words agaist national service, and against Israel as a whole. Four teenagers express that they are “against, against, against and against” the program. Rozeen Kanboura adds another “against.” And Ayan Abunasra makes her “articulate” case in opposition to the program.
This is analogous to a presidential debate in which viewers hear from one candidate, then from his opponent — and then from each member of the opponent’s senior campaign team. A stacked deck affects perception.
Imagine if it were revealed that Scott Pelley or Diane Sawyer had met with Chris Christie last year to implore him to enter the presidential race in order to save the country from political crisis, and had offered the platform of their evening newscast for the announcement. Then imagine the reaction if Brian Williams made a speech decrying extremism in the Republican Party and describing the Right as a threat to the national discourse. For good measure, consider the aftermath if the Romney campaign made back-channel inquiries to Sawyer about running for vice president and Sawyer failed to disclose the offer to her superiors, much less her audience.
Any single one of these scenarios would be explosive and would ignite a gusher of passion about the decline of objectivity in journalism. The specter of national news anchors venturing so blatantly into politics would be cited as toxic proof that their craft had been corrupted.
If you have waded through Douglas Brinkley’s thick, detailed book on Walter Cronkite’s life, you know that each one of these far-fetched sounding examples is borrowed from actual events. The venerable news legend exhorted Robert Kennedy to challenge Lyndon Johnson in 1968 and prodded him to announce his bid on the CBS Evening News. Cronkite publicly assailed the Nixon Administration for seeking to subvert the press specifically and political dissent broadly. On one occasion, in 1972 with George McGovern, and perhaps with an independent candidate in 1980, Cronkite entered discussions about taking a vice presidential slot, and kept the conflict of interest from his public and his bosses.
There is not much condemnation of Cronkite’s line crossing in Brinkley’s account; to the contrary, there is a tone of mourning for how much Cronkite’s stature is missed, and a lot of wide eyed admiration for the role he played as “America’s most trusted man” for a span of about 20 years. If Brinkley is at all discomfited by the times Cronkite crossed over from observer to participant, they are overshadowed by the many occasions when Brinkley applauds Cronkite for shaping the public debate, from Cronkite’s televised takedown of Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam policies, to his overt endorsement of the environmental movement, to his open jousting with Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew (the night Agnew resigned after admitting he took bribes, Cronkite editorialized on air that he and Agnew had been “ideological enemies”).
By Patrick Derocher, on Fri Jul 6, 2012 at 3:00 PM ET
Former Missouri State Representative Jason Grill appeared on WDAF-4 in Kansas City to discuss the political implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on President Obama’s healthcare law.
By Krystal Ball, on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM ET
Read this!!! New reporting on Fast & Furious says gun walking was never ATF policy. Looks like Fast & Furious was (as suspected) a frenzy whipped up by right-wing bloggers, covered by FOX, acted on by Congress. [CNN Money and CNN Money]
State primaries are in a truly very sad state. Voters don’t understand the importance of primaries. Voter turnout in every State primary has always been horrible. Primaries defeat the principle of representative democracy. Primaries give incumbents a big advantage over challengers. Next Tuesday, New York, Colorado, Oklahoma and Utah have primaries. And, the beat goes on.
One reason for poor turnout is that voters are often ignorant of the importance of primaries. For any office that is safe for a particular party, whoever wins the primary office contest has, in effect, already won the office. The office contest in the November general election is virtually meaningless. In the District of Columbia, almost all of the elected officials are Democrats. The primary election literally determines the DC government. The November DC election is a waste of time and money. Unfortunately many voters are unaware of this, and, by not showing up for the primary, they simply have no say in the selection of the candidate(s) who will represent them.
A second reason for poor turnout is that voters don’t understand primaries and are intimidated by them. Each State can hold a primary election in numerous ways. And, each State has its own rules in the actual execution of its primary. For voters, this makes for a confusing mess. They don’t know what party primary they can vote in. They don’t know how many different ballots there will be. They don’t know what party ballot(s) they can request. They don’t know what will be on the ballot(s). They don’t know what party identification they need. They simply don’t know what is going to happen when they show up at the polls. Worst of all, they can’t even get answers to these questions in advance on the State’s election website. I challenge you to try!
In the case of next Tuesday, New York and Oklahoma will conduct ‘closed’ primaries. Voters may vote only if they are registered member of that party. Independent and non-partisan voters cannot participate. Colorado, however, will conduct a ‘semi-closed’ primary. Registered party members and unaffiliated voters can vote only in a party’s primary. Independents choose a party. But, Utah takes the prize. It will hold a ‘closed’ primary for registered Republicans but will hold ‘open’ primaries for Democrats and Constitution party members. Is it any wonder that voters are turned off by the whole business?
Read the rest of… Ron Kahlow: The Sad State of State Primaries
Yes, Roger Clemens should be admitted and given an extra award for being dragged through the dirt!
It seems the government and our Congressional leaders should have more dangerous criminals to track down and go after.
I fear this all started because a few Congressional leaders wanted some headlines and signed baseballs from the superstars. I’m sure some serious steroid use was going on, and we know it is unhealthy for the players and should not be an example for the young kids, but surely we can let baseball police their own sport.
To me it was all a big waste of money and probably ruined many lives.
By Steven Schulman, on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
As an irregular feature, Mondays at The Recovering Politician are sometimes reserved for great debates among the contributing RPs and Friends of RP. Click here for a link to the prior debates.
Today, the following question is posed: Should superstar pitcher Roger Clemens, recently acquitted of lying about using performance enhancing steroids, be admitted to Major League Baseball’s Hall of Fame?
Steven Schulman, this site’s resident baseball expert — and the second best owner in his fantasy baseball league — leads off:
First, a few disclaimers: Roger Clemens was for many years my favorite baseball player. Until he signed with the Yankees. Then he was dead to me.
Ok, that’s behind us. The question is whether the acquittal of Clemens on the charges of lying to Congress and obstruction of justice make him more or less likely to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, and, in any case, whether he should be elected notwithstanding the charges (both legal and moral) against him.
The realist point of view is that the writers who are empowered to elect players to the Hall of Fame are highly unlikely to be persuaded by the verdict in a criminal proceeding. The prosecution’s burden in a criminal court is to prove the facts “beyond a reasonable doubt.” For Hall of Fame voters, the burden appears to be “well, I personally think so, for whatever reason.” For their own reasons – either moral objections or simple embarrassment that they themselves failed to uncover (or to reveal their own knowledge of) steroid use – writers are objecting to anyone from the 1990s into this century who even has a hint of steroid use.
Jeff Bagwell – who ranks among the best first basement ever (in the major leagues, not just my Rotisserie baseball team) – has failed in two tries to be elected to the Hall of Fame, simply because his body type and the era in which he played raise suspicions of steroid use. Accordingly, Clemens’s acquittal will hardly move the needle for the knights of the keyboard who guard the gates to Cooperstown.
By Artur Davis, on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET
When a gifted politician stumbles over words, it is often the case that Michael Kinsley’s venerable definition of a gaffe is the reason: namely, that the supposed miscue is nothing but the truth being told unintentionally. By those lights, there is a value in lingering over the last week of presidential gaffes: Barack Obama’s observation that the private sector economy is “doing fine”; and Bill Clinton’s aside that the Bush tax cuts should be extended for the immediate future.
The Obama blunder has already been discarded by the White House, with the campaign team weakly offering that “doing fine” was a poor word choice offered on behalf of a fact—that private sector job growth has been constant for 20 odd months. Clinton has more doggedly pleaded the defense of context killing by Republicans. The maze of explanation goes something like this: the former president opposes and has always opposed the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy and if he had his druthers, would repeal them; having said that, repealing the cuts not in isolation but as one element in a comprehensive deficit reduction deal is the best strategic approach for the economy; to buy more bargaining space for a deal, Clinton reverts to a short-term extension of the cuts for one year past their expiration this December. Not exactly a model of clarity, but perhaps a model of how to muddy the record.
The Kinsleyan truth is that both men meant it, but didn’t quite mean to say it. As for Obama, the remark on Friday paints a candid picture of this administration’s sanguine view of its economic record. Whereas most of the country incorrectly but tellingly describes the economy as mired in a recession, the Obama team believes it has woven a success story that compares splendidly with the staggering job losses in early 09. While the country hands Obama an approval rating barely above 40 percent on its economic policies, Team Obama grades itself as the architect of an emergency set of maneuvers that averted a depression. While polls show the country leveling at least some blame on Obama for failing to break the gridlock in Washington, it is the president’s conviction that the recovery would be stronger if only Republicans had not been so determined to block his policies out of calculation and extremism.
In other words, it is a self-drawn portrait that is indeed “fine”, perhaps even verging on quite good; it’s premises are recited as an article of faith by Democratic loyalists on every level. If only the country could see it.
As for the 42nd president, it is worth noting that no high profile Democrat more consistently draws a link between taxes and economic growth. On more than one occasion, Clinton has extolled the virtues of the Simpson Bowles Commission and its blend of entitlement reform, discretionary spending discipline and tax reform as well as outright tax hikes—but he has regularly done so with the caveat that the blueprint ought to be adopted now but shelved until after the recovery has gotten more robust. While the distinction can seem like a timing detail, it is in fairness a sharp point of departure from the 44th president, who sought just last summer to forge a substantial tax hike (and a package of spending cuts) in the teeth of the weakest three months of job growth in the last two years.
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: Of Presidential Gaffes & Their Consequences
By Jonathan Miller, on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 5:00 PM ET
From The Huffington Post:
MSNBC has found its replacement for Dylan Ratigan’s show: “The Cycle.”
The new program, which the network was set to announce on Thursday, will feature a permanent cast of four: conservative commentator S.E. Cupp, author and pundit Touré, Salon writer Steve Kornacki and former Congressional candidate Krystal Ball. All were previously contributors to the network. The show launches on Monday at 3 PM.
Who says primaries are not important? Tell that to the candidates and incumbents vying for New York’s US House seats. The 2010 census reduced the number of US House seats for New York from 29 to 27. The redistricting of these newly-redrawn districts means a new shuffling of the cards for the candidates and incumbents vying for these reduced number of US House races.
In the 2010 primary, only 18% of voters turned out for the New York Primary. The turnout this year could be even worse because, in January, a Federal judge moved up the primary from Sept. 11 to June 26. New York voters became accustomed to having a primary after Labor Day. The change in date can only further hurt turnout. So, possibly fewer voters will determine who might be elected to Congress.
Currently three-quarters (21 of the 29) of New York’s U.S. House seats are currently held by Democrats and only one-quarter (8 of the 29) by Republicans. Of the 27 newly-created districts, there are 10 traditionally held Democratic seats (Districts 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 18, 19, 23) being hotly contested. Many contests have between 3 to 5 candidates seeking a place on the November ballot. The Republicans will only have 5 contests on the primary ballot and they are a lot simpler with only 2 candidates in each contest. Three Republican US House district races are selecting a candidate who will attempt to unseat an incumbent Democrat. Two races are selecting a Republican for a traditionally-held Republican district. They also have three candidates hoping to unseat Democratic incumbent senator Kirsten Gillibrand.
Probably the most interesting contests in the New York Primary is New York’s 13th Congressional District, where Democrat Charles Rangel, who was the incumbent from the pre-redistricted 15th District now has to win the primary in the new 13th District. The old 15th District was basically the Harlem neighborhood. The new 13th District, which is still centered in Harlem, is no longer primarily African-American and has changed dramatically. The District has ballooned to cover all of Upper Manhattan, and extends into the Bronx. The old 15th District was close to 80% African-American, while the new 13th is only about 36% African-American and has a majority-Hispanic voting-age population.
U.S. Representative Rangel has been in the U.S. House since 1971 (i.e., for 41 years) and is age 81. In 1971, he defeated Adam Clayton Powell Jr. by a razor-thin 300-vote margin but has won handily every election since, garnering over 95% of the vote in most elections. He is the third most senior member of the House and Chairman emeritus of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. That seniority has allowed him to deliver millions of dollars to Harlem. But, he now faces four challengers in the upcoming primary election. Whoever wins this primary contest probably will be elected to Congress in this Democratic District.
In the new 13th District, Rangel is facing one of the toughest campaigns of his political life. He faces four very strong candidates.
Probably Rangel’s biggest threat comes from Adriano Espaillat. Espaillat is a Dominican-American and the only elected official among Rangel’s four challengers. He probably will obtain the majority Latino/Hispanic vote in the District. El Diario, the oldest Spanish language newspaper in New York, and is one of the most read publications in the 13th Congressional District, has endorsed and praised Espaillat’s work on behalf of poor and middle-class New Yorkers and said he would be a strong voice on immigration, healthcare, and other critical issues. Also, helping Espaillat is former candidate Vince Morgan. He withdrew from this race and endorsed Espaillat on April 10th.
But, Joyce Johnson also poses a significant challenge. Johnson ran against Rangel and came in third to Rangel and Adam Clayton Powell IV in the 2010 primary. At that time, The New York Times editorial board endorsed her over Rangel. She is a long-time activist, a former local Democratic district leader, and has spent many years in New York City government. She’s smart and is a graduate of Howard University with a degree in microbiology.
Another worthy opponent is Craig Schley. Schley is a highly-motivated 48 year old NYU Dean’s List Scholar and Harlem activist who built his reputation by opposing the 125th Street rezoning in 2008. This is his third time challenging Rangel. His campaign theme is to oppose the status quo. It may be dangerous to under-estimate an African American Bobby Kennedy type candidate.
Read the rest of… Ron Kahlow: Charlie Rangel, Redistricting, and the New York Closed Primary
