Rule: Mischaracterization – Advance the Dialog

The third Democratic debate is coming up, so it’s a good time to weigh in on some of my long-standing campaign and political news coverage pet peeves, many of which have been driving me crazy for years. (Apologies for not precisely citing the basis for each one–calling myself out, shame on me!)

“When you’re ‘explaining’, you’re losing.”
This refers to politicians who are correcting or clarifying a position or statement of theirs, usually after it has come under attack from an opponent, or the press.

News Hour, July 8, 2019 – Politics Monday (video)

Amy Walter (News Hour) invoked it in July when assessing Joe Biden’s explanation of his own comments about working with segregationists to get bills passed, and his ensuing clash with Kamala Harris over busing policy in the first Democratic debate. Walter referred to the phrase as a “classic line in politics”. It’s definitely not the first time I’ve heard it. Certainly, excessive ‘splainin’ by a candidate can take on a pleading quality and grow old quickly–a case of ‘methinks thou dost protest too much’–especially if the explanation is unconvincing. But the critique can come too quickly or, as in this case, after the media itself has been hammering on the issue, forcing more response by ‘keeping it alive in the news cycle’ which is unfair. In fierce elections, where attacks are the weapon of choice and the media has a habit of capitalizing on them, how is a candidate supposed to respond? By letting the mischaracterization or inaccuracy go unchallenged? Methinks not. Media: Focus on clarifying the issue involved, and let us decide who’s right. I’m calling this a Mountain Out of a Molehill. (For more on Kamala & Joe, see my [intlink id=”2248″ type=”post”]previous blog[/intlink].)

“No overarching message.”
I last heard this one from David Brooks (also News Hour). It is yet another overworked trope of the punditry and concerns a candidate’s lack of concision or ‘branding’ in their messaging on what they stand for. As above, it is primarily about campaign style, so does not, technically, break the Focus on Issues, Not Politics Rule since it is okay to comment on politics. But given the media’s predominant ‘cover-the-horse-race’ DNA, I think we’re justified in at least paring down some of the (what seems like incessant) drivel. Sure, messaging is important, but, for the amount of play this gets, not at the expense of content. We are long past the point of needing to reduce the many massive, and massively complex, issues we face, to pithy soundbites. Let’s trade that for a deeper examination of things that really matter. That is the only way we will be able to shape policy to improve our lives. I’m calling this out as an OverSimplification and Mountain Out of Molehill.

“message hardened” & “window closed”
Both of these were used in reference to the Special Prosecutor Investigation on Russian interference in the 2016 election, and possible Trump connections to it. The first phrase was offered as the reason for concluding that there is no recourse to Attorney General William Barr’s pronouncement that Robert Mueller “found no wrongdoing on the part of Trump” in his (Mueller’s) report on the investigation, despite substantial evidence (in the report) to the contrary and multiple, available paths for pursuing that evidence, because Barr’s “message had hardened [in the public’s mind]” and, so, continuing would not be politically viable. That assessment was repeated by many news outlets as laid out in Margaret Sullivan’s Washington Post piece, which critiqued it.

The second phrase was used by Bill Maher on his political satire show, Real Time. Maher, though not a journalist, echoed the oft-used sentiment by others when he said: ~“Mueller failed to be decisive, so the window closed [on getting the true findings of the report].”

This particular type of False Choice really sticks in my craw because it clearly prioritizes a veneer of ‘political viability’ of the issue (unsupportive polls) over its’ underlying substance and importance–in this case, getting to the bottom of potential serious wrongdoing via real, existing legal paths. The result? A press short-circuiting the Democratic process, de facto anointing itself as the ultimate arbiter of the decision, rather than the public!

This continues the insidious trend of slowly, incrementally stripping the electorate of their power, ‘dumbing them down’, by sending a message that there is nothing they can do, when, in fact, there is (several congressional & other investigations continue). It is particularly confounding coming from a press and punditry that relentlessly exposes Trump’s (and others’) lies, digging the public out from under them, only to heap misleading notions like these back on. Arrgh–have we gone mad? Call Outs: False Choice (decide quickly, or opportunity is gone) and Focus on Issues, Not Politics.

Campaign strategy: Attack Trump or focus on issues?
This question, posed by The New York Times on 2020 Democratic campaign strategy, is yet another familiar False Choice the press routinely offers up in their parlor game of ‘horse race’ politics. Suggesting the candidates must choose one strategy or the other, but not both, is an OverSimplification. To be fair, the article uses the question as a ‘jumping off point’ to examine Trump’s divisive racial rhetoric, and how (or whether) it plays in primary vs. general election Democratic strategies, plus, it is answered by strategists and candidates who say: ‘do both’. (Yea!) Certainly, Trump’s rhetoric, its affect and importance, are well understood at this point and merit covering. But, again, not at the expense of issues, which continue to get short shrift in our ever increasingly complex world. I’m just really tired of this emphasis, but we’re going to be seeing a lot more of it, I’m afraid. Call Outs: False Choice, OverSimplification and Focus on Issues, Not Politics.

Exclusive MSNBC coverage of SC Democratic Convention
The South Carolina Democratic Party granted exclusive rights for video coverage of their June convention to MSNBC over the protestations of 5 other major networks, according to the AP. The reason given: the candidates would get equal time since their full speeches would be aired. More than 150 journalists were also credentialed, but–whoa! Is this legal? It doesn’t seem like it should be. Call Outs: MSNBC, in the name of journalistic integrity and fairness, you should have refused the offer of exclusive rights and allowed the other networks to Cover the Topic of the SC Democratic convention, along with yourself.

“Insanity is repeating the same mistake over and over, and expecting a different result.” That saying is often used in reference to politics, but maybe in the current political climate, the converse is true. Maybe Republicans are applying a proven strategy- repeating an untruth over and over- and, via a feckless press, expecting, …and getting, the same result: appearing to be in the right on ‘willingness to negotiate’, thereby prolonging the debate on debt reduction, their goal. In other words, ‘insanity’, as in, ‘crazy like a fox’.

(30 second ad, 2 minute video; if no video below, click here.)

Tuesday, on CNBC’s Closing Bell , Maria Bartiromo, in an interview with Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY), said: “The idea that the President continues to reiterate ‘I will not negotiate’, isn’t it the responsibility of the President to negotiate? At what point does it look like the obstacle to progress is the President, rather than congress?”

‘The President won’t negotiate’: that is the familiar refrain from the Republicans as channeled through the media these past days. The answer to the question of it being his responsibility to negotiate is, yes, of course it is. The point is, he has done that, as well as be specific and clear on his position, which is also his responsibility, as it is the other side’s.

Ms. Bartiromo’s first Rule break was in quoting the President Out of Context. His true position is: ‘I will not negotiate under threat of government shut down.’ Her second mistake relates to the first. By posing the question of the Presidents responsibility to negotiate as she did, she implies he is shirking that responsibility which he is not. He is simply holding firm on his position as the Republicans are on theirs; thus, she breaks the Mischaracterization Rule. In this, she also forgoes the opportunity to recap and educate the public on the true state of talks, and to keep the focus on the more important issues- the budget agreement and debt limit. Isn’t that the responsibility of the media? This breaks the Focus on Issues, Not Politics Rule.

As for the second Question, Ms. Bartiromo Asked the wrong one. Instead of: “At what point does it look like the obstacle … is the President?”, she should have Asked: “At what point is the obstacle the President, and at what point is it Congress?”

Failure to check this type of routine downfall in the media allows agenda seeking partisans to continually game the system, repeating the cycle over and over, as it has across too many news programs, for too many days.

Using opposing parties in debate format, as in this case, can, despite badly worded questions, still bring clarity if those parties know the facts, and present them honestly. In the case of Rep. Yarmuth, assuming he was factually correct, we got some: “The President’s had about 20 conversations with the Republican leadership in the House about the budget since March. The Republicans in the Senate have consistently blocked the conference there, Speaker Boehner has refused to appoint conferees on budget from the House side. There’s been every opportunity to have negotiations on budget levels for the last 6 months, and Republicans have refused to do that.”

Tuesday night on Charlie Rose, when asked if “there was anything new [in the Presidents speech]?”, Chuck Todd (NBC News) said: “The President will support anything Boehner sends him that is ‘clean’, without any of those extraneous, politically charged amendments on both a spending bill and a debt limit, and he will take it for any length of time, so 6 weeks, 8 weeks… The President essentially agreed that, in that period, they’d be locked in some form of negotiation. … Boehner took that offer and called agreeing to that, ‘unconditional surrender’.”

Also on that show, Al Hunt (Bloomberg News) said the effective positions of the two sides have not changed in two years- Republicans want entitlement change, Democrats say no.

So it would appear that both sides have been equally ‘negotiating’, or– more accurately, equally maintaining their respective positions– and for some time. Such prolonged back and forth highlights the need for recaps. Recapping would cut through the dissembling and make crystal clear the absence of progress and the amount of time that’s been wasted ‘reporting’ on it in an endless loop of recriminations and False Arguments. Recapping clarifies things: it leaves the Emperor with no clothes, neutralizes strategies that ‘play the media’, and forces the Dialog to Advance.

And Advancing the Dialog, advances solutions.

This is a tool people, use it. There is simply too much work to do to waste this kind of time, over, and over, and over, and…..