“What a pretty baby!” Gov. Dean said, his face contorted with anger
If a respected paper such as, say, the Boston Globe, set out to drive down a candidate, what do you think they might do? Run a front page story saying that Dean’s pep rally “Yeah!” was a sign of his anger? Nah, too outrageously slanted. After all, if it was an angry yell, what was it denouncing? Fury that the campaign was going to continue? No, Doc got much closer to it when he called it a Whitmanesque barbaric yawp.
But here’s the money shot from the first paragraph of The Globe’s front page story:
Dean found himself struggling to explain the reaction, casting it as a show of passion, while critics said it confirmed the angry streak they hear in his speeches and campaign rhetoric.
And the evidence that Dean was struggling to explain it? None. The critics who think it was a sign of his “angry streak”? Sixteen paragraphs in, the reporter, Sarah Schweitzer, finds a professor who wrote a book about the New Hampshire primary who says, “That moment crystallizes a lot about what’s been said about him, that he’s the angry man.” This is such a clear case of media self-confirmation that it’s almost touching.
In between, we get a repetition of the Angry Man meme:
Dean has sought to soften his image by layering speeches with references to community. Yesterday, he described his campaign as one of “hope” and himself as a “neighbor.” But he has erupted at times on the campaign trail — he recently berated an insistent Iowa voter for interrupting him.
And the evidence that the community theme is an addition to a core of anger? And the evidence that this has been “layered” onto his speeches not because Dean believes it but in order to soften his image? And the evidence that he has “erupted” more than once on the trail? And when Bush silenced hecklers, this was certainly evidence that W is The Angry Man, right?
Schweitzer doesn’t miss the opportunity to selectively quote the person on the street to make the point that she wants to make, the sleaziest practice in professional journalism: “Bob Scipione, 66, a retired biochemist of Bedford and a committed Dean supporter, offered this explanation: ‘The man has to be out of control to beat Bush.'” Sarah, what possible justification do you have for choosing that quote from that person? I’d love to know.
If this sort of biased reporting is unwitting, then the Globe ought to get a reporter with some wits. But, unfortunately, the problem is bigger than that. Jay Rosen is right. It’s the power of The Narrative. It is no less shameful for it.
Some generous words of support for Deaniacs from Michael Moore, who’s supporting Clark. Subtext: There will be plenty of time for you to support Clark once Dean’s run is done.
And more medicine for the heart from Doc.
I just realized that I blogged in November about another article that struck me as just as lazily biased as this one. Same author. I’ve taken a guess at her email address and am sending her the links. Sarah, my comments are working. Feel free to tell me why I’m wrong.
Categories: Uncategorized dw
You’re right that the campaign is more about the campaign than the candidate (at least compared to other campaigns). That’s part of what it means to be a populist. Those of us who believe in the power of self-organization, grassroots, emergence – you know, the usual buzz words – should take the how of the Dean campaign quite seriously.
I thought your original criticism was that the campaign’s “core message” is mushy. Now it’s that it’s alienating. Hard to be both.
Is it compelling to those not on board? That’s what we have elections to figure out. But I believe the core message – fighting special interests and focusing on the real needs of Americans (security, sound economy, health care, education) – is one it’s reasonable to support.
“I thought your original criticism was that the campaign’s “core message” is mushy. Now it’s that it’s alienating. Hard to be both.”
That’s a little unfair, I think. You and Jeremy have presented me with two “core messages.” One was vacuous, the other uncompelling and “likely” alienating to those who previously supported Bush, but might otherwise consider reversing their decision.
Now you’ve presented me with what may be the third “core message.”
My point is, if you are, as it seems to me, a hard core Dean supporter and you can’t articulate in a few sentences the unique characteristics that make your candidate superior to the others, then your candidate has a serious problem.
We don’t elect campaigns, to state the obvious, we elect candidates. To lose sight of that is to lose the election. Focusing on the campaign instead of the candidate allows your opponents to define your candidate for you, which is what has been happening since the Gore endorsement.
I have no favorite in this race, but I did have a visceral reaction to what I perceived as the mindless flocking to the Dean “insurgency.” I was angry at the Gore endorsement, not because he should have supported Joe Lieberman, but because no voter had had the opportunity to take a close look at Gov. Dean, and those who did support him seemed more excited about “grass roots populism” and “smart mobs” than whether or not this guy has what it takes to go toe to toe with George W. Bush. Trying to manufacture the air of inevitability, which is transparently what that endorsement was about, was offensive to me. What we’ve seen since that endorsement hasn’t been encouraging, from both the governor himself, and from his organization.
I do have a preference, and it is for either Wesley Clark or John Kerry. I think Edwards has many good qualities, but I think his relative lack of experience and record as a trial attorney will make him vulnerable. We haven’t had the opportunity to see how he’d respond to the trial attorney attacks – perhaps he’d do well, or perhaps they wouldn’t have traction with voters. But those are big unknowns, and his lack of experience in both governance and leadership really troubles me.
Every candidate will tell you he or she is focusing on the real needs of Americans. But there are significant differences in the ways the respective candidates choose to approach meeting those needs, and that’s where elections, not campaigns, matter. It’s not necessarily where they’re won or lost, but it is where they matter. If you want to look for your candidates’s message, I suggest beginning there. That’s the “how” you need to take seriously. This isn’t a party. It’s not about have a “good experience.” It’s about setting an agenda for the future of this country, and how we wish to enact that agenda. It is most definitely not about whose mob was “smartest” or youngest, or best looking – which are some of the things I’ve seen written about the Dean campaign by the Dean campaign. If you lose, it won’t be because of the press.
I think that there are important similiarities between what is happening to Dean and what happened after the Wellstone memorial service. Wellstone’s service was “spirited” in the best sense of the word…. but was trashed by many in the press and traditional broadcast media. Mondale’s emergency two-week campaign was similarly trashed, all for the heartfelt demonstrations of feeling of those who lost a brother and leader.
Why is the “politics of emotion” becoming such a huge factor (as defined by the right wing)? Dean hoped to mobilize his tired supporters. Why not show enthusiasm and energy? It is bitterly cold out here in the Midwest, and we need all of the spirit we can muster!
Dave, I’ve laid out what I take to be the “core message” — even while maintaining that there’s more to supporting a candidate than agreeing with a message — at three levels of detail: “We can take our country back,” what that parses to, and the sets of issues that it leads to. I actually think that’s far more specific and concise than the other leading candidates. What’s Kerry’s core message? Clark’s?
You’re right, it’s not about feeling good. You’re arging against a strawperson. I *have* articulated in a few sentences what’s different about Dean: His message (which you don’t find compelling, but that’s different than saying he doesn’t have a concise message) and the way he’s running his campaign (which you reduce to “feeling good”).
I don’t see how Clark (who runs out of money in the Spring) or Kerry can beat Bush, since I think both are weaker candidates than Gore, and Gore “lost.” I’ll work my tail off for whichever Democrat gets the nomination, but so far it seems to me that Dean has the best (if outside) chance of beating Bush, I’m generally happy with his policies (as with the other Dems), and his populism gives me hope that if he’s elected we can see some real change in this country.
Dave, you and I are far apart on how we evaluate candidates and campaigns. Fine. In a few months I assume we’ll be working for the same guy.
Right on, Jo Ann! Plus, there were 3,500 people there cheering their heads off, noise that wasn’t picked up for TV because it would have drowned out Dean.
What, it would have been more “presidential” for him to do the manly thing: Stand there somberly and issue bromides?
I appreciate the discussion here
very much (I was a former lurker
until compelled to contribute). As
I return to lurking, I’d like to
add one more point: we’ve got to
stop playing by the “rules” as laid
out by the right wing (and the traditional
media, etc., etc.). By those rules we’ve
lost already. I prefer a real person in
the White House– someone who has
helped heal sick children– not a made-for-TV figure.
We’ve got to think only of the families
of the 500 soliders lost since our Iraq
“victory”… and of the kids who don’t
have health insurance. And we’ve got to remember
Paul Wellstone (who would have jumped higher
and snarled louder than Dean ever did).
thanks from the Midwest, and hoping that the East Coast comes through next week–
Sorry all, hectic day.
Dave:
I am generally non-partisan, but I dislike many of the things Bush has done. I don’t see a viable 3rd party– and don’t expect to as long as we have winner-take-all electoral votes.
And so I expect to vote Democrat this election.
But I am not a rabid Deaniac. I am, in fact, still undecided among the Democrats.
I don’t speak for Dean or for David. The message I stated is meaningful to me, and it’s a message I hear, but have never heard Dean say.
Truth is a tough thing to get your arms around, and all the simple answers have already been found. People fight over details, but that’s not where the value is. Tim Bray has a decent page on this:
http://tbray.org/ongoing/Truth
If I can trust a candidate to be deliberate, considerate and moral– and I’m not implying religious– then I feel I can trust that candidate to also make sensible policy decisions.
Am I interested in specific stands on specific platform issues? Sure. But I also consider whether I can believe the supposed position and the motives for that position.
I thought the State of the Union was fluff and polish. I don’t think much of Bush, and therefore don’t put much stock in his promises or initiatives. He may well believe what he’s doing right. But I don’t.
So far, every candidate has some positions that I care about, and some that I don’t. There’s no one candidate that represents exactly what I’d do if I was the Boss, and I doubt there ever will be.
I therefore tend to vote not just on issues, but on what I feel about the candidate. Apple pie, you say. Leadership, I say.
You should not construe my earlier suggestions to David as unequivocal support for Dean– I’m interested in having a good President. I respect David and his support of Dean. I know David’s struggling to deal with the media’s handling of Dean.
I was simply trying to have a small positive impact. Not saying “oooh, Dean’s the Internet candidate, and vote for him, cuz he’s bloggin’.”
Sorry I wasn’t clearer before.
00111000010100111010100101010010101100011101011111010010100100101
“I am generally non-partisan, but I dislike many of the things Bush has done. I don’t see a viable 3rd party– and don’t expect to as long as we have winner-take-all electoral votes.”
I have never voted for a winning candidate in any presidential election since 1976. Two of my most favorite candidates, Paul Tsongas and John McCain never got their party’s nomination. Maybe I’m just a contrarian.
“Truth is a tough thing to get your arms around, and all the simple answers have already been found. People fight over details, but that’s not where the value is. Tim Bray has a decent page on this.”
I’m pretty much a pragmatic when it comes to truth. THE Truth is pretty much an ideal, and I’m not certain we can ever know THE Truth about many things. Information has reliability and utility. Information that is highly reliable and very useful I generally regard as “true.” I seldom look for THE Truth in an election season. Mostly, I try to find reliable information.
“I therefore tend to vote not just on issues, but on what I feel about the candidate.”
I would say you are not alone in this. In fact, I would go so far to say that virtually everyone who does vote, votes this way. We are not completely rational beings, and we lack the cognitive faculties to make purely rational decisions all of the time. Most of the time we all rely on how we “feel” about something. I’m not saying this is a “bad” thing, it’s just they way I think it is. It seems to have worked for several hundred thousand years.
None of the candidates particularly inspires me. The two I most favor are ex-military men. I think I know something of their character on the basis of my own 22 years of commissioned service. My “gut” tells me Dean is not the guy. I also “feel” that much of the success of his candidacy prior to Iowa was due to something other than the candidate. I “think” it was the combination of anger toward Bush and the attention garnered by the interaction between the internet, the candidate and the media, three high attention-earning entities. People often confuse attention with authority, which is probably either the basis of the principle of “social proof” or strongly related to it.
I have no faith in mobs, and I don’t believe there is any such thing as a “smart” mob. I think “emergence” is great for things like evolution and ant colonies, but it may not be so great for figuring out what the “right” thing to do is in an election.
I believe technology changes “hows,” it never changes “whats.” And almost all of our problems are related to our “whats.”
I believe the answers to our problems won’t be found in better “systems” or newer technology or “populist” candidates. I believe the only answers that matter are found in each individual. I believe Gandhi was wise beyond comprehension when he said “You must become the change you wish to see in the world.” I think if we all spent more time trying to save ourselves instead of trying to save the world, the world would be a lot better off.
Failing that, I try to choose candidates that will cause the least damage. I don’t know if my choices have ever been correct, but I take some comfort in the knowledge that I seldom find myself in the majority.
Dean’s Supposed Anger
Since Monday night after Howard Dean gave that speech, I’ve been hearing, watching and reading media interpretations that left me thinking they’d watched a different guy. They say it was a sign that it was another demonstration of his “anger,”…
Fair and balanced
I’m sorry, who’s the angry candidate? Oh, I see, he’s just “pushing for a big win”. I can’t help but think this picture would’ve accompanied a different kind of story if it was someone else caught mid-scream. I may not…
Dean exits
I like much of what Dana says. He’s clear-headed and hugely passionate at the same time. And a heck of a writer. (FWIW, he’s angrier at Kerry than I am.) I also like Joan Walsh’s piece in Salon. Joan has…