 |
|
|
||
|
This Is a Test!
Is the press tilting for Gore? We'll find out soon enough ... |
|||
|
Posted Thursday, October 4, 2000 In the filing center and food tent at last night's debate, reporters argued with each other over whether their coverage, overall, had been "biased" in favor of Gore. There are, roughly, two competing theories on this issue, familiar by now even to non-reporters: 1) The Cyclical Theory holds that reporters do periodically gang up on one candidate or the other. They build a nominee up, then they tear him down. In a more sophisticated variation, they initially follow the polls--so that when Candidate A is up, the journalistic herd looks for an explanation of why he's up, and he gets good press for a while, until reporters need a new story to tell and look for an opportunity to chop him up and boost his opponent, starting the cycle again. This cycle of coverage may be stupid and predictable, the theory goes, but it's stupid and predictable in an ideologically neutral way. (For a sample of a Cyclical Theorist at work, see this Dana Milbank piece.) I don't want to weigh in again on this hoary issue. I want to resolve it. By scientific means! At least I want to suggest that it may be resolved in the next few days, because the circumstances are in place for an almost clinical trial of the two competing theories. Up to this point in the campaign, after all, both theories have plausibly explained the press herd's actual behavior. That behavior can be characterized roughly as one big cycle. The press hounded Gore and built up Bush in the early months of 2000; then it built up Gore (and hounded Bush) after the rise in Gore's poll standing that followed his convention speech. Cyclical Theorists could argue that the wheel will probably turn again--but if it doesn't, well, the coverage roughly balanced out, since Gore had his bad weeks and Bush had his bad weeks. Lib Bias theorists could argue, with equal power, that a cycle in which Gore gets his good weeks at the end, when it counts, isn't exactly incompatible with the idea that reporters are following subconscious orders to elect Gore. Now, though, we're at a fairly key moment in the campaign where the two theories would predict sharply divergent press behavior. I'm referring to the controversy--or, rather, potential controversy--over Gore's debate statement regarding his response to the fires in Parker County, Texas, and his experiences with James Lee Witt, head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, whom Bush had praised. What Gore said last night was: First I want to compliment the governor on his response to those fires and floods in Texas. I accompanied James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out.If there was one bit of ironclad press wisdom before the debates, it was that Gore couldn't afford another fiblet, another self-serving exaggeration. After all, the stumble most likely to be reported and magnified in the press, we're told, is the stumble that reflects a candidate's stereotyped fatal flaw--and the cliché flaw for Gore is that he exaggerates. (Bush's cliché flaw is dimness.) A fib would be just the sort of thing to jump-start an anti-Gore press cycle--indeed, when Gore told a fib about his dog's arthritis medicine two weeks ago, it almost did jump-start an anti-Gore cycle. But not quite. One more exaggeration and it would be Katie-bar-the-door! If you were Gore's adviser, one of the three or four things you'd have told him before the debate was "Don't fib." So what did Gore do? He fibbed. It turns out he didn't "accompany James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out," an anecdote that left viewers with a mental image of Gore surveying the fire zone from a helicopter. At best, he traveled to Houston, made some remarks at the airport, and (along with attending local political events) met with "the head of the Texas emergency management folks and with all the federal emergency management folks," as Gore now puts it. But not with Witt, apparently. "If James Lee was there before or after, then, you know, I got that wrong then," Gore now admits. (See this AP story.) OK, media, over to you! If there is an ideologically neutral press cycle, the Witt Fib should certainly set it off. The Cyclical Theory would predict a mini-orgy of Gore-trashing stories, emphasizing the serial, obsessive nature of the fibs, pointing out that by now the issue isn't whether the fibbing is important, but why Gore persists in fibbing when he knows that whether it's important or not he has to stop or else the press will treat it as important! It's as if Gore were told that whatever he did at the debate he shouldn't hop up and down on one foot and he'd gone and hopped up and down on one foot. It's as if Gary Hart had gone home with yet another babe after the Donna Rice incident! Put another way, the question isn't whether Gore's a liar and whether that's worse than Bush being dim; it's whether Gore's lying shows that, in some respects, he's a bit dim too. If the Liberal Bias Theory is correct, however, the predicted mini-orgy, the anti-Gore cycle, won't happen. Reporters will for one reason or another pass off the Witt Fib as a non-story. It will play deep inside the New York Times and Washington Post. It won't be featured on the nightly news or in the newsweeklies. The last-straw lie will mysteriously become a next-to-last-straw lie. If he lies again, then we'll nail him! That's the ticket! Anyway, we don't harp on stereotyped flaws anymore! That's old news--the voters have processed it! Which will it be? As this item is written, it's shortly before midnight on Wednesday, Oct. 4. The dailies come online in a few minutes. The newsweeklies get written a day from now. Only time will tell! But not that much time. Does the press herd target Democrats and Republicans randomly? Or is even the dynamiting of a large boulder unable to start an avalanche against a Democrat in the waning weeks of a close campaign? Note: The other promising potential Gore exaggeration, which Republicans and Gore skeptics hoped might flower into a full-fledged fib, was the vice president's debate assertion that, during World War I in Europe, "My uncle was a victim of poison gas." A few reporters chuckled and made notes to themselves to check out this story--mighty convenient having an illustrative uncle, don't you think? But it is apparently true. New E-mail service: Sign up, using the ListBot gizmo below, and you will be notified by e-mail whenever there's a new item on kausfiles.com. [Note: this service is free. You'll be asked a couple of demographic questions; if you find them annoying just leave them unanswered.] | ||||
|
Recently archived: Gore vs. the Mysterious Forces The trouble with the Democrats' Shrumarama in L.A.. Cheney: Cheerleader for OPEC Let those Yankees in key Midwest battleground states freeze in the dark! Bush and Cheney: The Secret Transcripts Crock of Goldstein WaPo welfare reporter falls for Brookings spin, and worse. The Real Hillary Scandal Mr. and Mrs. Clinton forgot to get their stories straight. The Gift of Nader Gore could use a rival on his left. Rehnquist's Scandalous Shmatte Did he deduct that $30,000 robe? What's He Hiding? Notes toward a unified Bush theory. Special Re-Flogging Edition More on WaPo's hypocritical critic. CBS's Defective Defector 60 Minutes adopts Internet news standards. Looking for Mr. Good Death Mickey's Assignment Desk #8. Another Greenhouse Effect Resurgence of "labor resurgence" stories puzzles experts. Crosswired Politics Why the parties are trading places on some issues. The Toobin Crisis, Day 141 Ann Godoff vs. Charles Peters. The Purnick Platform The new NYT lets it all hang out. Run, Peggy, Run! The best anti-Hillary candidate. Kuttner's Poor Statistics Have child poverty rates 'scarcely moved'? Drew's Cluelessness Please don't let her anywhere near the First Amendment. Why Gore Won't Pick Richardson An impolite thought .... How Convenient! Now McCain tells us. Now She's Done It Maybe that nice centrist Mrs. Clinton really is against welfare reform. Pardon Our Reporting Clinton left the door wide open! Elian: An Overlooked Angle? Castro did Clinton a big favor last year. Boomers Against Death The shift against the death penalty isn't necessarily a shift to the left. The Perfect Campaign All e-mail, all the time! No Justice, No Paez The LAT and 'judicial activism.' Kausfiles Battles for the Vital Center! Why Bush has plenty of time to reposition himself. Clean Sheets The case for selling the Lincoln Bedroom. Don't Push It, Hillary Plus: kausfiles moves its cheese! Faster Politics Why 'momentum' ain't what it used to be. Jeffrey Toobin, Chicken! Fifth of a series. Hillary's Shocking Truth Plus: the Nissan Cojones Watch. Hit Poems A kausfiles contest. Gore's Press Problem Plus: How he blew his chance for a New Hampshire knockout. Bush Knows What "Regatta" Means Bradley's SATS; the media's moodswing; the neolibs' nightmare. Jeffrey Toobin, Hypocrite, Part III! How dare Isikoff write a book, says Toobin in his book. Not Gotcha Why Gore's gay flip was a genuine gaffe. Pay Up, Shrum! Litmus test flip-flop smoking gun. Jeffrey Toobin, Hypocrite 'Tawdry voyeurism,' anyone? Cuomo Family Values Did Mario raise his son to be Hillary's Boy? DeParle Gets Half the Story The NYT doesn't tell us what we need to know about Milwaukee's poor. Bill Clinton Wants You on Welfare! Is this the dole administration after all? The Pornographer Who Didn't Bark Why wouldn't Flynt bust Newt? Yes, There Are Easy Answers! The NYT and WaPo find a quick fix for affirmative action. Who Stole Nissan's Cojones? Jerry Hirshberg'a got a lot of ... chutzpah! Doesn't Anyone Want to Be Famous? The political opportunity of a lifetime. The Ending of the Black Underclass, Part XVIII African-American welfare receipt falls to new low. Just Buzz Me! Synergy City! Harvey Weinstein plans a TV show based on Talk. Is Daniel Patrick Moynihan the Devil? A review of the evidence to date. Harvey Scores Again! An exciting new Talk contest. Is It Over? Clinton's Pathetic Second Term Revealing the one Big Thing he still might accomplish. Maybe Bush Didn't Snort Coke -- Maybe He Dropped Acid! One solution to the Bush drug mystery. George Bush, Drug Pioneer? Bush's pharmacological time-line seems a little ... out of the mainstream. Will Tina Fire Lucinda? Talk and truth. Copyright 2000 Mickey Kaus. 
|
|||
