Thoughts about Bedfellows

pumpkin pie and spinach metaphor

This metaphor that Peterson asserts in his introduction is full of gravy.  He links pumpkin pie with late night comedy in the context of a PEW study that suggests 61% of Americans below the age of 30 get their political information from that outlet.  The metaphor also implies that people hate news, spinach being hated (recalling GHWB as well).  Spinach, though, is also linked to strength alla Pop-eye with a later line of Peterson's "topical comedy is an inadequate substitute for news."  So, what is actually going on with this metaphor?

Press corps dinner, Colbert

Peterson argues that Colbert was heroic, not because of the jokes themselves, but because of his role as underminer of the man sitting next to him.  He continues this idea later contrasting Colbert to the medieval court jester.  Peterson implies that they are not the same, and that in the 1200s, Colbert might have lost his head.  

Political Satire vs. Comedy about Politics

This is arguably one of the most important distinction Peterson draws in his book about distinctions (even the title sets up a dialectic).  He argues that Comedy about politics is anti political in nature, he demonstrates this with the timeless joke which I'll now update - if Hillary, Obama, and McCain were in a boat in the middle of the Atlantic, and the boat flipped over and all of them drowned, who would win?  America.  It is apathetic and at its core makes the claim that politics are bad.  Political satire, practiced by Colbert, Stewart, and Maher, engages politics.  He later makes the point that one of the most endearing qualities of Stewart is that he in fact "cares" about politics.  

Now, if one were to envision this dialectic as a Venn Diagram, the deconstruction of this argument becomes readily apparent.  The late night jokes of Letterman, Leno, etc. stem not from a deep apathy, for if an apathy that deep existed no one would ever want to hear jokes about politics.  Rather they stem from an even deeper desire to engage politics, tempered by a cynicism born of the distance (the close door, the back room deal, etc.) that both political comedy and real news journalism maintains between the public and the government.  

Only satire, as Peterson demonstrates later, has the power the articulate that distance, thus making it manageable and, most importantly, ignorable.    

conflation of journalistic and comedic ethics (crossfire)

Those were all warm ups.  This, as demonstrated by the oft cited crossfire video , is perhaps a key feature of any discussion involving media, comedy, and politics.  After familiarizing ourselves with everyone from Murdoch to Tocqueville, we have a grasp on the role of the fourth estate.  Yet, that fourth estate has now, according to many, lost its way in light of the conglomorization (good new word) and the theatricitization (I went the extra mile to make that one) of mainstream media.  It has reached the point where, excuse my language, bow tie wearing douches pretend to participate in actual reporting, yet are so confused between the theatrics of comedy and the theatrics of journalism, no one can level the conversational playing field and explain the difference.  

So, this is all my post so I can skip it in class tomorrow so we can have a real discussion.  What do you guys think is the difference between comedic ethics and journalistic ethics?  Where does that distinction fall apart?  And how can we, the public, put it back together in some semi-comprehensible, useful sort of way?

Shhhh

You didn't get this from me.

Propaganda

Propaganda that makes a logical argument must be either intellectually dishonest, unethical, or deceptive.

I first have to concede that no argument is exclusively logical.  Even pure logic carries some gravitas that can be classified as ethos to an extent.  So, let's say that propaganda, which at its core has a logical sequence of rational thoughts that are meant to convey a coherent message, must distort that sequence in either an unethical or dishonest way.

A distortion can occur by ignoring vital pieces of evidence, refusing to acknowledge objections, ignorantly or deliberately misquoting (citing) evidence, etc.

A distortion can also occur if the logical sequence is subverted by another medium. For example, if one runs images counter to the spoken or text based argument.  

I must grant that my argument is predicated on a narrower definition of the word propaganda.  If propaganda can be information disseminated to support or subvert an establishment, then it need not be, at its core, deceptive.  If, in a situation of moral absolutes, one party, the one in the right, ran a propaganda campaign to subvert the establishment of the party that was in the wrong, then propaganda can exist without deception.

Yet, those days where moral absolutes occur are few and far between.  Most problems are too big, too complex for black and white interpretations.  It is in those issues that logos based propaganda must be deceptive.  

When narratives go bad

Bill O'Reilly is known for his loud if not logical opinions.  His show is one of the most popular on television, and certainly a key piece of the Fox News fair and balanced narrative.

For me, Keith Olberman here does what Outfoxed should have.  I think this is a well worth watching piece of media criticism.  

What makes this whole thing so interesting is not Bill O'Reilly's adherence to his own skewed perspective. After all, we can certainly imagine how hard it is for an aging dog to change his one trick. What is most interesting is that Foxnews edited the transcript.

This means a bunch of different, startling things. 1. Foxnews sees itself as not a reader or reporter of reality first. It is first a shaper of reality. When reality does not conform to the fair and balanced narrative that it proclaims at the top of every hour, it is reality that must be wrong. 2. Foxnews believed that retaining Mr. O'Reilly's truth was paramount to its mission. Perhaps, though, it is not an adherence to truth or even shaping reality that drove Fox to edit the transcript. Perhaps it is the ratings that the Factor brings in. 3. Foxnews must have no, and by no I mean no, respect for its audience.

So, what drives this media outlet. Perhaps it is ratings. Perhaps it is hubris. One thing we know for sure is that it is certainly not journalistic ethics.

Yet, is it fair to only accuse foxnews of such a moral lapse? In the Washington Monthly's "the other war room" by Joshua Green, I think it is possible to extend moral lapses to the current administration as well. Green argues that the Bush administration determines policy based on principles, a perfectly legitimate opinion about the nature of authority in a democratic system of governance, yet it then uses polls to shape the language with which those policies are sold. In other words, the Bush administration has consciously skewed perspectives in order to sell their narratives that often do not conform to reality.

Once again. Money? Hubris? One thing we know for sure is that it is certainly not what Lincoln had in mind when he wrote "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

McCain Supporters

Interesting little tid bit right here. The People's Press surveyed McCain's supporters reaction to the election.  Of the 611 voters surveyed 30 said they were not surprised by the result, while 21 said they were.  How can that be?  

Most of those who were not surprised must have followed the polling data which had McCain down a lot on the eve of the election.  How come people were surprised?  

Also,

Rassmussen reports that "among Republicans, 78% believe reporters are trying to help Obama and 10% see most offering unbiased coverage."

Playing plausible association now.  Does this have anything to do with the mistrust of data and mistrust of the "mainstream liberal media" by some rural voters?  

Great Demographic Data

The census bureau has a new feature on its cite.  Check it out for all of the data goodness one could ever need.

Gupper Peas

The south seems like it will begin signaling for a more conservative republican party.  The latest Pew research poll shows that 

"Roughly two-thirds (68%) of Republican and Republican-leaning voters identify themselves as conservative, and three-quarters of these voters think the party should turn further to the right. While a majority of the moderates and liberals within the party advocate a centrist approach, they make up fewer than a third (31%) of Republican voters overall."

The Pew polls also found that "Yet the exit poll revealed a sizable gap in support for Obama between whites in the South and those living in other parts of the country. Just 31% of southern whites voted for Obama, while he garnered the support of about half of white voters living in other regions."

It seems that the 'he who holds the south will sour' idiom will remain true.  

Why not?

I'll post more substantially later, but how could I resist the opportunity to post a video of my dad as a expert/pundit on CNN.

Enjoy.

For those who are interested.

THE WAR ROOM

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

Link 5

Link 6

Link 7

Link 8

Link 9

Transparenting (to make transparent)

Perhaps one of the most important roles that the fourth estate has is transparenting government.  Government, at least this one, was founded on the principle of "of the people, by the people, and for the people," this sort of motto can only apply if the people have the information.  If the close door of governmental meetings has a transparent plane of glass through which we can peek inside.  

All the President's Men is more than just a mediation on the opaquity of government, it is a dramatization of the vitality that transparence must have in government.

Much of what we've done over the past few weeks has been research about sound journalistic methodologies and ethical journalistic practices.  We've outlined the models of journalism, we've debated their merits.  But, what is the best that journalism can do?

All of what we've done takes us back to Alexis de Tocqueville's conception of the fourth estate.  

A more serious question, though, arrises from Tocqueville's argument.  Today's discourse is fragmented, whether newspapers are doing a good job or not is immaterial to their loss of stature.  With multiple media outlets competing for multiple audiences, Tocqueville's sense that newspaper creates and mobilizes community seems to fade.  

Does it?

Elongated Discourse and Polling Data Part II

Robert Bellah argues that as the middle class developed, a more specific discourse, field particular jargon, developed as well. This new language was predicated not on positionality, but on a set of abstract principles or guides, e.g. happiness, love, hate, etc. Middle class rhetoric, in turn, shifted from "because you are my son" to "this would make me happy."

The shrinking middle class, as well all know, was perhaps the most contested demographic in this election cycle. According to the CNN exit polls, among those making 50,000 to 75,000 49% swung to McCain and 48% swung toward Obama. That income bracket was also the largest demographic to vote holding a 21% share of total voters.

If you listen to the speeches of the last three days of the campaign, McCain ceases associative argumentation, as one expect in a race for the middle class, following this logic. McCain does not associate Obama with Ayers or Wright. He does not associate him with Terrorists, or Blacks, or Socialist (Palin continues, but let's deal with McCain for now). He appeals to abstract principles. Experience vs. Inexperience. Change vs. Risk.

Obama though stuck with associative rhetoric, seemingly contrary to this logic. 90%. 90%. 90%. Bush = McCain.

The truth though is that this hard and fast distinction of rhetoric fails to account for non-exclusivity of rhetoric in general. But perhaps more important, is that positional rhetoric was a key piece of Obama's campaign. And if you look at how he performed among the poor, uneducated, and the very well educated and very rich, Bellah's pattern holds. Obama won those who make less than 50,000 a year 60% to 38%. And although Obama and McCain split those who make over 50,000 per year 49% to 49%. Those who make more than 200,000 dollars a year went to Obama 52% to 46%.

McCain, who's campaign was running two major narratives (experience and risk) as opposed to Obama's one (change), won on the abstract principled one of "experience," albeit not by much. And soundly lost on positional rhetoric of association, which Obama's one narrative dominated.

Interestingly, when McCain was polling slightly ahead of Obama right after the RNC bump, his speeches were all about his service and his experience. He had, in effect, widen the middle class with guided rhetoric. But once Rick Davis decided to go after Obama with associative rhetoric, around October 7th, the campaign basically ended, because they had moved the social moorings of the conversation onto a battlefield that Obama had already been entrenched in.

As an aside, ironically, Obama, the self proclaimed champion of the middle class, narrowed the demographic with his positional rhetoric. Funny, huh?

Slate and the voting crisis

article here.

Problems in VA

Both Richmond and Fairfax have been experiences technical difficulties this morning.  These are counties that Obama is counting on to carry VA for him.  

Nudity and Politics

Maybe that should be a class at YU.

In related news, this article.

Comedy/Election Central

FYI, Jon Stewart is covering the returns this Tuesday night with Colbert as a guest anchor.

Statistically speaking

We all know, by now, that we do a horrible job at counting votes. Who even knows if any of the presidents we have ever elected have ever actually won?

So, up at my grandparents home this weekend, I asked my grandfather statistically how could we best count.

Here were his thoughts:

Take a sample of 3,000 to 4,000 Americans, randomly selected on November 4th. We make sure every single one of them vote.

We will come out with an answer that has a margin of error less than 1%.

I'll get the exact math on this if anyone really wants to know.