Monday, September 20, 2004
Open Letter to the Media
Dear the Media:
First of all, by “the media” I would like to note that I am intending to address both for-profit established news organizations and the blogospheres.
I am so very tired of reading about Vietnam, either through the guise of John Kerry’s disputed medals or Bush’s service. Lots of people probably got medals that they really didn’t deserve and lots of people probably pulled strings to get out of going at all. Either way, I really don’t care. Please stop talking about it.
I am sick of listening to people bitch about how the candidates are not talking about “the issues.” News flash: the candidates ARE talking about the issues; it is the media is not. The media is covering Vietnam.
I have tried to understand. I know you can only report on a stump speech once. However, the media at large have been covering all these stupid events that happened 30 years ago in much greater details than the current stump speeches. Guess what. You actually are allowed to report on what is happening today. People will actually want to read about that. It might actually be useful to the overall campaign. But the media does not want to be useful, they want to be “edgy” and they have decided, apparently, that Vietnam-era bitch slapping is more edgy and more interesting than current news.
However, Kerry has made some excellent speeches, which I don’t read about. Apparently, Laura Bush has been telling us that “W Stands For Women” but I don’t know why, because no one covers that. If the media would focus as much attention on the substantive things that are happening on a daily basis about the things that should matter in deciding who to vote for as they do on fluffy look-at-me stories, our country would be a much better and more educated place.
I am starting a personal campaign. I will send a copy of this letter to any and all news organizations that show me stories about voter apathy, as well as today’s press release from both major presidential campaigns. (They are available on each candidate’s website: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/ and http://www.georgewbush.com/News/) This election is incredibly important, and the voters know this. Please treat us like we are rational, sentient adults capable of making good decisions with good information. Otherwise, you are only weaving the hand baskets that are sending this country to hell.
Furthermore, please stop sticking the word “gate” on the end of a word to show that there is controversy surrounding that topic. Rathergate, Memogate, etc, all of these names are stupid, as were Monicagate and Margaritagate. See, here’s the thing: I understand that by sticking “gate” on the end of the word, it’s an attempt to be clever and make a reference to Watergate and Nixon. But – and this is the important part, so pay attention – the scandal that we refer to as “Watergate” had nothing to do with water. It was the name of a hotel, a hotel that I don’t even think is by much water. So, by calling something “Rathergate” and intending your readers to interpret it as “The Scandal Surrounding Dan Rather, CBS and Col. Killian’s alleged Memos About George W. Bush’s National Guard Service Or Lack Thereof,” you are actually making an ass of yourself.
Oh, and specifically to the bloggers that “broke” that whole CBS-got-duped thing. Congratulations. NO ONE CARES EXCEPT FOR YOU. And maybe CBS. Yes yes, overall, you did a good thing, but we’re done with that now. Fact-check some stump speeches and talk about how some of those are full of shit. Otherwise, you’re really not helping and you’re not cool and you’re not “anti-establishment.” So get with the program and stop annoying me.
Sincerely,
India McKinney
First of all, by “the media” I would like to note that I am intending to address both for-profit established news organizations and the blogospheres.
I am so very tired of reading about Vietnam, either through the guise of John Kerry’s disputed medals or Bush’s service. Lots of people probably got medals that they really didn’t deserve and lots of people probably pulled strings to get out of going at all. Either way, I really don’t care. Please stop talking about it.
I am sick of listening to people bitch about how the candidates are not talking about “the issues.” News flash: the candidates ARE talking about the issues; it is the media is not. The media is covering Vietnam.
I have tried to understand. I know you can only report on a stump speech once. However, the media at large have been covering all these stupid events that happened 30 years ago in much greater details than the current stump speeches. Guess what. You actually are allowed to report on what is happening today. People will actually want to read about that. It might actually be useful to the overall campaign. But the media does not want to be useful, they want to be “edgy” and they have decided, apparently, that Vietnam-era bitch slapping is more edgy and more interesting than current news.
However, Kerry has made some excellent speeches, which I don’t read about. Apparently, Laura Bush has been telling us that “W Stands For Women” but I don’t know why, because no one covers that. If the media would focus as much attention on the substantive things that are happening on a daily basis about the things that should matter in deciding who to vote for as they do on fluffy look-at-me stories, our country would be a much better and more educated place.
I am starting a personal campaign. I will send a copy of this letter to any and all news organizations that show me stories about voter apathy, as well as today’s press release from both major presidential campaigns. (They are available on each candidate’s website: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/ and http://www.georgewbush.com/News/) This election is incredibly important, and the voters know this. Please treat us like we are rational, sentient adults capable of making good decisions with good information. Otherwise, you are only weaving the hand baskets that are sending this country to hell.
Furthermore, please stop sticking the word “gate” on the end of a word to show that there is controversy surrounding that topic. Rathergate, Memogate, etc, all of these names are stupid, as were Monicagate and Margaritagate. See, here’s the thing: I understand that by sticking “gate” on the end of the word, it’s an attempt to be clever and make a reference to Watergate and Nixon. But – and this is the important part, so pay attention – the scandal that we refer to as “Watergate” had nothing to do with water. It was the name of a hotel, a hotel that I don’t even think is by much water. So, by calling something “Rathergate” and intending your readers to interpret it as “The Scandal Surrounding Dan Rather, CBS and Col. Killian’s alleged Memos About George W. Bush’s National Guard Service Or Lack Thereof,” you are actually making an ass of yourself.
Oh, and specifically to the bloggers that “broke” that whole CBS-got-duped thing. Congratulations. NO ONE CARES EXCEPT FOR YOU. And maybe CBS. Yes yes, overall, you did a good thing, but we’re done with that now. Fact-check some stump speeches and talk about how some of those are full of shit. Otherwise, you’re really not helping and you’re not cool and you’re not “anti-establishment.” So get with the program and stop annoying me.
Sincerely,
India McKinney
Comments:
<< Home
I care about Vietnam. I think it fits into a pattern of general irresponsibility on Bush's part, especially where the military is concerned. I think it shows that Kerry, even though everything in his life has been done with one eye on how it will play in a campaign, at least made some sacrifice. I think that's a good metaphor for our options this election: Complete Irresponsibility vs. Limited, Cynical Sacrifice. I'll take the latter.
I think by saying "no mas!" on all things Vietnam, you've negated what should have been a Democratic advantage. By throwing feces at the wall for a couple months, the Republican operatives behind the SBVFT have managed to fight this issue to a draw. I think that sucks ass. You're giving them what they want by throwing your hands up.
Know why no one reports on day-to-day trail activities? Because they're steaming piles of scripted bullshit. Laura Bush is saying "W Is For Women?" That's not news. If Laura Bush said "Screw this, I'm campaigning for Kerry," that would be news. But the "W Is For (women/wrong)" and daily press releases are that much roll-your-eyes campaign spin. The fact that you could link to them without the help of the Washington Post is a great argument for the Post not wasting its time on them.
Conventions are useless theatrics, too, but those still get covered because of a) tradition, b) ratings and c) journalists love a free trip where they get taken care of. There will come a day when conventions are shunted into this dog-bites-man category, too.
I agree totally about "-gate". "Watergate" was a specific building's name. It is not a compound word of "water" and "-gate". I have a similar objection to non-words like "chocoholic" and "shopaholic". Are you implying there are people out there addicted to chocohol and shopahol?
There is an institutional journalistic obsession with being "first" to something. On one hand, it's silly, but on another, it distinguishes people who actually go out and find things from parasites who just rewrite existing stories.
So why not let the bloggers enjoy their moment? They figured it out first. "Outfoxed", which I watched last week, lamented the corporate-controlled media that restricted the amount and content of available news, Fox being the most extreme example. Having a bunch of bloggers out there sniping at each other and at the major media decentralizes the flow of information.
The "fair and balanced" charade of Fox, the softer bias of Dan Rather and establishment news, and the rise of ideologically driven bloggers makes me wonder if we ought to just have an openly partisan press. True objectivity is nearly impossible, and "nonpartisan" journalists tend to present "he said, she said" stories that don't have the guts to call a lie a lie for fear of bias charges (it was too late before anyone *mainstream* bothered to debunk SBVFT).
Thoughts?
~Charlie
I think by saying "no mas!" on all things Vietnam, you've negated what should have been a Democratic advantage. By throwing feces at the wall for a couple months, the Republican operatives behind the SBVFT have managed to fight this issue to a draw. I think that sucks ass. You're giving them what they want by throwing your hands up.
Know why no one reports on day-to-day trail activities? Because they're steaming piles of scripted bullshit. Laura Bush is saying "W Is For Women?" That's not news. If Laura Bush said "Screw this, I'm campaigning for Kerry," that would be news. But the "W Is For (women/wrong)" and daily press releases are that much roll-your-eyes campaign spin. The fact that you could link to them without the help of the Washington Post is a great argument for the Post not wasting its time on them.
Conventions are useless theatrics, too, but those still get covered because of a) tradition, b) ratings and c) journalists love a free trip where they get taken care of. There will come a day when conventions are shunted into this dog-bites-man category, too.
I agree totally about "-gate". "Watergate" was a specific building's name. It is not a compound word of "water" and "-gate". I have a similar objection to non-words like "chocoholic" and "shopaholic". Are you implying there are people out there addicted to chocohol and shopahol?
There is an institutional journalistic obsession with being "first" to something. On one hand, it's silly, but on another, it distinguishes people who actually go out and find things from parasites who just rewrite existing stories.
So why not let the bloggers enjoy their moment? They figured it out first. "Outfoxed", which I watched last week, lamented the corporate-controlled media that restricted the amount and content of available news, Fox being the most extreme example. Having a bunch of bloggers out there sniping at each other and at the major media decentralizes the flow of information.
The "fair and balanced" charade of Fox, the softer bias of Dan Rather and establishment news, and the rise of ideologically driven bloggers makes me wonder if we ought to just have an openly partisan press. True objectivity is nearly impossible, and "nonpartisan" journalists tend to present "he said, she said" stories that don't have the guts to call a lie a lie for fear of bias charges (it was too late before anyone *mainstream* bothered to debunk SBVFT).
Thoughts?
~Charlie
# posted by 
: 3:55 PM
: 3:55 PM
On Vietnam: There are two reasons I don’t care about Vietnam: One (that you can also read about on Andrew Sullivan) is that the legitimacy of the memos doesn’t really change my opinion of Bush. Andrew Sullivan’s argue is more memo-specific, but I think it has a broader connotation. Do I think Bush used his daddy’s connections to get out of a crappy war? Yes. Does that necessarily make him unfit to lead? No. What makes him unfit to lead is that he has no sense of accountability for his actions and does not seem to care about the broader repercussions of blustering bullshit, fiscal responsibility, or ethical customs.
The second reason I don’t care is that I don’t think that the details of events 30 years ago should have more impact on a current election than all the subsequent events combined. Though I voted against Bush in 2000 and I cried when he won, I was impressed with his refusal to talk about anything he did in college. I thought 40 was a bit old to continue having “youthful indiscretions” – once you enter the public life of owning big companies and baseball teams, that should be fair game – but I did like that he managed to get away with doing drunken stupid shit in college. If people who did drunken stupid shit in college were not allowed to hold important positions, the Mormons and the Uber Religious Right would be running the country, and that would suck. I don’t care that Bill Clinton might have smoked pot in the 60s (or that he tried, apparently he couldn’t actually manage it). If he’s STILL smoking pot, that’s an issue. But not if it happened 30 years ago.
So, regardless of whether or not it could help the Democrats in this particular election, I think that establishing dregging up the past to win a current election is a bad precedent to set…much like establishing the precedent of a regime change, but no matter. Sure, where people started is interesting, and knowing how they got to where they are now is useful, but the cursory details will suffice. What really matters is what they did once they got there. If we MUST talk about things that happened so long ago, let’s contrast Kerry’s years of public service to Bush’s years of dicking around. Neither campaign wants to do that because of the Flip-Flopping Issue and the Dicking Around. So we don’t.
Plus, by focusing on what happened in Vietnam, thinking perhaps they would surely win that one, the Kerry campaign had allowed itself to be distracted from talking about things like, oh, the Deficit, the War in Iraq, the Failing War on Terrorism, the fact that our allies hate us, and the UN wants to see us screw ourselves. You know, the current stuff, the stuff that the President, whoever he is, will have to deal with on January 21, 2005, after he stops campaigning. I know who I’m voting for, so what we focus on doesn’t much matter to me, but for those brave souls who still have to make up their minds, I would rather have them make up their minds based on things that are happening in the status quo rather than things that happened 30 years ago.
That’s why I don’t care about Vietnam.
On campaigns: Of course they’re steaming piles of bullshit. But, it’s relevant bullshit and I would like to know what’s being said. The reason that I think campaigns should be more widely covered to make sure that the candidates have a national audience. Poli Sci lesson: In Presidential campaigns before the ability to have national coverage, the candidates had a tendency to say different things to different audiences. Like, they’d tell the Farmers in the Midwest that they were all pro-tariff to because they wanted to help protect American farms, and two weeks later, they’d tell the Union Workers in the Northeast that they were anti-tariff because they wanted to ensure a market for American products abroad. And so on. It was widespread because communication wasn’t as good, and politicians aren’t stupid. Rule #3 of Good Public Speaking is to Know Your Audience. The only way to stop this is to make sure that a speech in Iowa gets covered in papers read in Boston. This is a National Campaign, so it needs National Coverage.
I know that Laura says that W Stands for Women because I saw a picture in the LA Times of Laura Bush at a podium with a sign that said “W is for Women”. However, the article was not about what she said, but that she said it and that Bush’s poll numbers among women are up and Kerry’s are down. Well, that’s awesome, but if you don’t tell me WHY W Stands for Women, I have no way of understanding why some women think that Bush in the White House would be good for them and Kerry would not.
The only thing that conventions do anymore is to write the platform, which is becoming more and more dictated by the Nominee. It’s also a free PR stunt for the candidates that didn’t make it. It’s basically a really expensive party, and I predict a radical change in the way that goes down in the next 8 years. 1964 (I believe.) was the first in a series of laws to mark the direct election of a party’s candidate, thus the removing the selection process from the smoke-filled back rooms of the convention. It takes about 36 years for major political effects to take place, and so it’s just now time to take another hard look at why we have campaigns.
On bloggers: I have no problem letting the bloggers enjoy their moment. I think that having a large system of people in place to fact-check the pants off the corporate media is the best way to make sure that the corporate media isn’t making stuff up. And this is a good thing. It’s media accountability the likes of which we’ve never seen before, and I think it will have a very positive impact on the way news is given. My problem, to clarify, is that the bloggers seem intent on prolonging their moment, saying the same stuff over and over and over. (Plus, the attention spent on this particular issue outweighed the importance it should have on the election. See my comments on Vietnam above.) And I didn’t like the gloating. I think Dan Rather handled the situation badly, but when someone gets caught with his pants down, it’s a bit obscene to point and laugh and describe in loud and obscene detail how dirty his underwear is.
On NPR this morning, they asked a media professor at some school I had never heard of why the press was spending so much time talking about this particular story, and though I had no idea who this prof was or why I should believe her, her answer made sense. She said that the press love talking about themselves, which is why any story surrounding media operations (NYT and Jason Blair, USA Today) would receive a disproportionate amount of coverage. It then follows as I am not the press, nor do I aspire to be, the continued coverage sounds like “Blah, Blah, Blah.” Day One – Interesting. Day Fourteen – Not.
Post a Comment
The second reason I don’t care is that I don’t think that the details of events 30 years ago should have more impact on a current election than all the subsequent events combined. Though I voted against Bush in 2000 and I cried when he won, I was impressed with his refusal to talk about anything he did in college. I thought 40 was a bit old to continue having “youthful indiscretions” – once you enter the public life of owning big companies and baseball teams, that should be fair game – but I did like that he managed to get away with doing drunken stupid shit in college. If people who did drunken stupid shit in college were not allowed to hold important positions, the Mormons and the Uber Religious Right would be running the country, and that would suck. I don’t care that Bill Clinton might have smoked pot in the 60s (or that he tried, apparently he couldn’t actually manage it). If he’s STILL smoking pot, that’s an issue. But not if it happened 30 years ago.
So, regardless of whether or not it could help the Democrats in this particular election, I think that establishing dregging up the past to win a current election is a bad precedent to set…much like establishing the precedent of a regime change, but no matter. Sure, where people started is interesting, and knowing how they got to where they are now is useful, but the cursory details will suffice. What really matters is what they did once they got there. If we MUST talk about things that happened so long ago, let’s contrast Kerry’s years of public service to Bush’s years of dicking around. Neither campaign wants to do that because of the Flip-Flopping Issue and the Dicking Around. So we don’t.
Plus, by focusing on what happened in Vietnam, thinking perhaps they would surely win that one, the Kerry campaign had allowed itself to be distracted from talking about things like, oh, the Deficit, the War in Iraq, the Failing War on Terrorism, the fact that our allies hate us, and the UN wants to see us screw ourselves. You know, the current stuff, the stuff that the President, whoever he is, will have to deal with on January 21, 2005, after he stops campaigning. I know who I’m voting for, so what we focus on doesn’t much matter to me, but for those brave souls who still have to make up their minds, I would rather have them make up their minds based on things that are happening in the status quo rather than things that happened 30 years ago.
That’s why I don’t care about Vietnam.
On campaigns: Of course they’re steaming piles of bullshit. But, it’s relevant bullshit and I would like to know what’s being said. The reason that I think campaigns should be more widely covered to make sure that the candidates have a national audience. Poli Sci lesson: In Presidential campaigns before the ability to have national coverage, the candidates had a tendency to say different things to different audiences. Like, they’d tell the Farmers in the Midwest that they were all pro-tariff to because they wanted to help protect American farms, and two weeks later, they’d tell the Union Workers in the Northeast that they were anti-tariff because they wanted to ensure a market for American products abroad. And so on. It was widespread because communication wasn’t as good, and politicians aren’t stupid. Rule #3 of Good Public Speaking is to Know Your Audience. The only way to stop this is to make sure that a speech in Iowa gets covered in papers read in Boston. This is a National Campaign, so it needs National Coverage.
I know that Laura says that W Stands for Women because I saw a picture in the LA Times of Laura Bush at a podium with a sign that said “W is for Women”. However, the article was not about what she said, but that she said it and that Bush’s poll numbers among women are up and Kerry’s are down. Well, that’s awesome, but if you don’t tell me WHY W Stands for Women, I have no way of understanding why some women think that Bush in the White House would be good for them and Kerry would not.
The only thing that conventions do anymore is to write the platform, which is becoming more and more dictated by the Nominee. It’s also a free PR stunt for the candidates that didn’t make it. It’s basically a really expensive party, and I predict a radical change in the way that goes down in the next 8 years. 1964 (I believe.) was the first in a series of laws to mark the direct election of a party’s candidate, thus the removing the selection process from the smoke-filled back rooms of the convention. It takes about 36 years for major political effects to take place, and so it’s just now time to take another hard look at why we have campaigns.
On bloggers: I have no problem letting the bloggers enjoy their moment. I think that having a large system of people in place to fact-check the pants off the corporate media is the best way to make sure that the corporate media isn’t making stuff up. And this is a good thing. It’s media accountability the likes of which we’ve never seen before, and I think it will have a very positive impact on the way news is given. My problem, to clarify, is that the bloggers seem intent on prolonging their moment, saying the same stuff over and over and over. (Plus, the attention spent on this particular issue outweighed the importance it should have on the election. See my comments on Vietnam above.) And I didn’t like the gloating. I think Dan Rather handled the situation badly, but when someone gets caught with his pants down, it’s a bit obscene to point and laugh and describe in loud and obscene detail how dirty his underwear is.
On NPR this morning, they asked a media professor at some school I had never heard of why the press was spending so much time talking about this particular story, and though I had no idea who this prof was or why I should believe her, her answer made sense. She said that the press love talking about themselves, which is why any story surrounding media operations (NYT and Jason Blair, USA Today) would receive a disproportionate amount of coverage. It then follows as I am not the press, nor do I aspire to be, the continued coverage sounds like “Blah, Blah, Blah.” Day One – Interesting. Day Fourteen – Not.
<< Home
