The ubiquitous CNN pundit on Larry King last night:
KING: Could the pundits be wrong?
DAVID GERGEN: Absolutely. Absolutely. It was a wonderful piece in the Wall Street Journal this lastweek by Josh Lerner. He was a really interesting young man who went back to a lot of political science and said more often than not, pundits are wrong.
You know, we have a worse record than if you just did it randomly in terms of predicting the–you just flip a coin and you would come out with better predictions.
Take his advice, please.
But seriously: Dean Baker from CEPR has one of the best short takes onelections and media coverage over at the Politico, which is worth posting in full:
There is a serious problem with our political culture and is centered on the news media. The media take no responsibility for informing the public on the issues that will affect their lives.
Rather they focus almost exclusively on trivia and quirks. Of course the candidates respond to this, knowing that any effort at dealing with issues in a substantive way will be ignored. Instead of talking about real issues, they jump full force go along with the focus on nonsense.
How many people know that Social Security will be fully solvent for decades into the future, according to all projections? How many people know that the per person cost of healthcare in the United States is close to twice as much as in countries like England and France, both of which enjoy much longer life expectancies? How many people know that the projections of huge long-term deficits are entirely the result of our broken healthcare system? If our healthcare costs were like those in any country with a longer life expectancy, then the U.S. projections would show huge surpluses.
It is the media’s job to give this information to the public. They don’t have time to do the research on their own. If we evaluated the media by the same standard as we evaluate teachers (i.e., are the students learning?), we would have to fire almost every last reporter in the United States, because the public is not learning.
The effort by rich business interests to buy campaigns would also be considerably less effective if the media reported on what was taking place. For example, BP, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs may consider big contributions to a candidate to be a much worse investment if they knew that their contributions would lead to a major article that explained that BP, Citigroup or Goldman was giving money to candidate Smithbecause they know that Smith will let them wreck the Gulf without paying compensation and will take everyone’s money and give it to the Wall Street banks.
Unfortunately, we don’t get much real news. We get stories about witchcraft and Aqua Buddha. Until we get better media, we will not get better politics.
corporate media…..corporate parties….corporate personhood…. â┚¬Ã…“People get the media/government/judical system they don’t deserve.â┚¬Ã‚Â
The lack of good reporting is why the Internet is playing a much more important role for providing substantive information. It is also why there is a concerted effort in government (especially during the Bush Administration) to regulate access.
The political solution starts with Campaign Finance reform (one item on Obama’s agenda) in which money is taken out of the system. Another is to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to eliminate corporate control of the media (5 corps now control over 90% of the media).
Unfortunately, I don’t expect much will occur over the next two years with the House in Republican control.
This is why Net Neutrality is a critical issue. If the corporate internet providers control the flow of information, the last bastion of free speach and access to real information will be gone.
Jon Stewart was right. The media is so much to blame, but then they only do what their corporate masters want (or, what will help them keep their jobs and move up). If the media (whatever happened to the proud profession of journalist?) won’t look to any moral standards (which I’m sure they’re aware of) which would insist that they stop with the gossip and tell the public the important facts, what can we do?
Hey, if I’m not mistaken the media get advertising dollars from BP, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. Give me a break. They are not going to rub their nose in it. And if they got tough with the politicians they’d soon not have any show up to interviews.
We need public finance of elections, plus mandatory free ad time and debates for all qualified candidates on all licensed stations. That might suck some of the wind out of the corporate-financed bidding (I mean, election) process.
I agree with Tishado: Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, and require media outlets to provide free air time to candidates. The airwaves belong to us, and the media have a responsibility to contribute to the public interest. Also, I like what Australia does: Voting is mandatory, and you pay a fine if you don’t show up. We could do that, too, and use the fines for public financing of elections. ALL private money should be prohibited from campaigns. If elections were publicly financed, and if everyone had to vote, then no party could win by ginning up its extremist base, and candidates would have to appeal to the mass of voters. Although, as Ron B says, fat chance of anything like that happening as long as Republicans control anything.
Yes, we need publicly financed campaigns, with a time limit, with the Fairness Doctrine (well said) and term limits — six years for both Houses of Congress and the President. The House and Senate elections would be staggered every two years. This way there would never be the need to cozy up to anyone in order to be re-elected. After sitting out six years one could run again. I don’t believe we should force folks to vote.
That’s right, Pat Fagan, and a huge battle is coming over control of the ‘net. Service providers need to be brought under control–they provide service, and that’s it. They should have little or no control over content and direction. If they don’t like it, they can get out.
Note one result that hasn’t received much comment in the press: a high level of angry white male testosterone depresses the election of women (unless they are angry, lethal momma grizzlies). But even for the GOP, angry testosterone surges discourage female candidates winning nominations. In the angry white male party, there’s a natural preference for angry white male candidates. The GOP primary is a major barrier for women candidates…though it’s gratifying that Murkowsky could win in the GENERAL election, defeating Alaska’s angry white male candidate.
Except for her victory, and Murray’s in WA, this really was the AWM election. Too bad none of the pundits are seeing that, instead booming the outcome as a great repudiation of Obama and the Dems by â┚¬Ã…“the American people.â┚¬Ã‚ The media collaborate in the brilliantly effective (sadly), but dishonest and unrealistic framing efforts of the GOP.
Consider (as NOONE in the media, or even the Democratic Party) are saying): The GOP got about 54% of the vote Tuesday. Turnout probably didn’t exceed 40% (average MT turnout is 38-40% of the eligible electorate).
Doing the math, the GOP was endorsed, for whatever reason –agreement with their agenda (to repeal all the 2009-10 reforms, extend Bush’s tax cuts for the upper 2%, etc), OR just to say â┚¬Ã…“I’m really pissed off at the world right nowâ┚¬Ã‚– BY ONLY c. 22% OF THE ELECTORATE.
Where the Dems failed was in not getting enough of the other 3/4 to the polls. If they misinterpret their loss, the Dems and Obama will move toward the right, instead of trying to help and mobilize the discouraged voters.
I agree that the media is controlled. I am very concerned about PBS when I see David Koch’s name on our local PBS. He and his brother, Charles are billionaires like his father who started the radical John Birch Society. When I was teaching in Colorado in the 70’s, one of the men running for representative gave a speech and he thought parents should pay to teach their own children. I was amazed, but thought this jerk could not get far. He did not get elected, but the John Birch Society lives on today in many ways to destroy our democracy! I worked to get Clean Elections in Arizona after I retired and now it is being destroyed here.
I believe the quality of actual “news” reporting rapidly declined the moment networks started requiring their news departments to “pay their own way.” Thus began the world of talking heads and infotainment being passed off as news. Once upon a time, news departments were insulated from that requirement. The rest of the network programming covered the cost of presenting news.
I think public financing PERIOD is essential for all federal elections…the sooner the better for judicial elections. With the new flood of money I don’t think the Fair Elections Now Act is going to go far enough…particularly with caps on matching funds. It may have to do for now. My guess is it may take a Constitutional Amendment for the other. And then of course the issue may end up in front of the same Supreme Court that decided corporations are people. Makes my soul hurt.
Re campaign coverage, I would suggest, rather than trying to require that all stations provide free ad time for candidates (which I think will run into huge legal challenges), that a public station (not operated on cable like C-span) be started that would hold debates and also provide a Snopes-type service to 1) report on the truth of political ads and 2) provide free rebuttal time for candidates to respond to attack ads. Might at least counter SOME of the end-of-campaign Swiftboat tactics. Even better if candidates are required to provide proposed ads to the fact-checkers BEFORE release. Think that’ll fly?
I really wish blogs and online news groups had provided more information about upcoming redistricting and why these particular midterms were so important. Money FLOODED into the states, including judicial races. In those states that have legislative bodies involved in the process, as opposed to independent redistricting boards, it’s going to be very very messy. The chances of certain “flavors” of candidates even being viable in districts is going to be affected for the next decade. I’m certain horsetrading has already begun. Brennan Center for Justice has excellent material on redistricting for those interested. In my view, this was the worst possible election to “sit out” in protest. Makes me tired just to think of what’s coming, possibly because I live in Austin and there are still hatchet marks in the Capitol following Tom Delay’s little coup in 2003. Be sure and see what watchdog groups in your area are covering redistricting.
I love when people argue how wonderful Europe and other countries are doing -compared to us.Nonesense.They are ahead of us in the collapse,and trying hard to mend their socialist policies that got them there….again ahead of us.Some European countries kick our asses in the exercise dept and they eat much better.That would easily account for any small difrerence in life expectancy.Actually it has been questioned in medical journals why that separation is not more profound.