Following Edwards, and as a prelude to nominating Kerry, the multiracial hip-hop group Black Eyed Peas came out to perform their hit, “Let’s Get It Started.” Flipping channels to try and catch the performance, I found that the only network carrying it uninterrupted was Fox News. And just as I was getting suspicious about why Fox News was giving a hip-hop group time that could have been handed over to their pundits, the song ended and Fox anchor Brit Hume came back and said, “The Black Eyed Peas with their rendition of a song that’s popular in the swing states, especially the refrain ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,’ which the Kerry campaign believes will have particular resonance.
In yet another fine report from Eric Boehlert in Salon he notes, as I did last night, that Wolf Blitzer immediately cut to GOP spin after Edwards’ speech.
One other note about CNN’s at-times head-scratching coverage last night. Following Edwards’ acceptance speech, Blitzer, in what may have been a convention first, immediately turned to partisan representatives from the opposing party for a reaction; Bush campaign advisor Ralph Reed and former Bush Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke.
We’ll be watching closely during the Republican gathering in New York City to see if following Vice President Dick Cheney’s speech, CNN immediately seeks out Kerry advisor Mark Mellman and former Clinton spokesman Joe Lockhart for their analysis.
Atrios mentioned tracking disparities in spin opportunities earlier in the week. Maybe before the GOP convention we could prevail upon Uggabugga to do one of his great charts so we can keep track of this stuff.
This is becoming a favorite new trick. Fox did it during the Democratic primary debates they hosted (and even cut off the last of the debate itself to fit in Bill Bennett’s trashing before the end of the hour.) I have no idea if Reed and Clarke were previously booked for the slot or if they themselves arranged to be there at the appropriate moment. But, the fact remains that the first interview and reaction (and it went on for some time) that was shown on CNN after Edwards’ speech last night was from a highly critical Republican operative. If they do this again tonight I think we should make it our cause to demand that Democrats be given the same opportunity to immediately trash Cheney and Bush’s speeches in NYC before anybody has had a chance to even catch their breath. Very often, people stay tuned in for just a few moments after an event like that. Those moments can be critical.
If anyone wonders if the “Republicans don’t give a shit about Homeland Security” line is political cant, Kevin at Catch notices that the right is now openly trashing firefighters and police now. Interesting tactic. He quotes the ever irrelevant Michelle Malkin:
First Responder Fetishists. In her convention remarks on Monday night, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said the first homeland security priority in response to the 9/11 report was the “need to fully equip and train . . . our first responders in the event of a terrorist attack.” Eager to suck up to men and women in uniform, John Kerry has proposed adding 100,000 first responders to the ranks of firefighters and emergency medical personnel nationwide. As I have said before, there is no question that our brave firefighters, cops and emergency personnel need increased training and support — but dialing 911 is not the solution to stopping another 9/11.
Lucianne’s drunken mistake says:
And while I’m at it, I cannot stand this talk about funding “first-responders” as a defense against terrorism. Obviously, there’s good reason to have an adequate infrastructure and all that. But it’s not a defense in the war on terrorism. To me it’s like telling your kid to defend himself from bullies on the way to school by giving him extra bandaids to carry with him.
They’re right, of course. Funding first responders is not a defense against terrorism. It’s a defense against thousands of people dying unnecessarily in a terrorist attack.
To hell with that pussified nonsense. The more people who die in a big blue city terrorist attack the better. Dead bodies make good GOP politics. I think they’ve proven that.
According to Tom Shales, “the networks have got to look for a better convention story than the hoary old bore about how conventions don’t matter any more. It makes them sound like shills for the corporate front offices, who hate to lose an hour of profit-making pap even in the middle of summer.”
I take it that Barbara Ehrenreich is using a rhetorical device when she suggests that Kerry and Edwards adopt this line rather than the “manly” veteran image they’re conveying, but some of the ideas within her piece are correct on the merits and contain some smart politics.
I think adding “human rights for women” into the foreign policy and terrorism debate is smart. Bush and his merry band certainly thought it was a good idea in selling Afghanistan. Unfortunately, they have made things worse for the women in Iraq in many ways, while only marginally improving things in Afghanistan (in the areas in which the religious zealotry of the Taliban has really been routed.)
This is an issue that most people can agree that we could possibly affect positively if done respectfully and it is also one which all but the most zealous fundamentalists in the US can agree upon regardless of political ideology. It has the added virtue of being one real, although complicated, approach to dealing with Islamic terrorism.
According to Jonathan Chait there is actually a type of journalism in which you don’t have to leave your desk and go out amongst the human race — my least favorite thing to do. He and Franklin Foer call it “ass-welt reporting.” It consists of “sitting behind a desk, mining the papers for interesting factual nuggets, reading political commentary from every perspective, poring through books and reports, and using the Nexis database to compile enormous stacks of newspaper stories.” He says, “It means you’ve sat in your chair for so long reading books and documents that you’ve worn a welt the shape of your backside into your chair.”
And you get paid, too. Sweet.
Actually, his article is a very interesting take on what I would say is true of all conventions and trade shows. If you aren’t a good networker or a star they are exhausting and dead boring. I’ve been to my share and I can tell you they’re not for the shy and retiring.
Matt Stoller has an excellent post up on The Blogging of the President about the media role at the convention. This is the kind of inside look at “how thing work” that I’ve been waiting to read. He talks to Sean Hannity:
“Why are you here, Sean Hannity?”
“To annoy you.”
“Seriously, why are you here?”
“Because this is newsworthy…. It’s what we do, cover stuff like this.”
Later in the conversation, I asked him if any news will be made at the Convention. He gestured to himself and said, “The best part of the Convention is right here. This is uncontrolled and spontaneous.” And that’s the thing. These guys see themselves as newsmakers.
Well, they are bigger celebrities than pretty much anybody there, aren’t they? (And, please nobody tell me that is meaningless because it just isn’t.)
Matt goes on to describe how Ed Gillespie managed to use the Democratic media infrastructure today to efficiently get their message out. It’s almost funny. But, in the end, he has an insight that I think is very, very astute:
…these guys know why they are here, and no one else except the Kerry campaign does. This is about message for them. They aren’t part of the media, they are part of the Bush reelection campaign. And as a result, they are looking at this Convention just like the Kerry campaign is – as an opportunity to generate and propagate prepackaged message.
I’m becoming much less interested in the question about journalists versus bloggers for precisely this reason. I’m not convinced there’s any journalism going on here. This is about fighting over message – meanwhile there’s a conversation out there, somewhere.
There is absolutely no journalism going on there. (And, frankly, there’s not much blogging going on either. Wherever the conversation is it isn’t taking place in the blogosphere.) What we are watching from out here is a fight to get competing messages out to the American people by hook or by crook.
It’s about media manipulation and marketing and the Republicans are very, very good at it. Their biggest problem is that they are selling an extremely defective product. If they win it will be a true testament to their message machine.
Please shoot me if I ever, ever forget how loathesome Joe Lieberman really is. The TAPPED convention blog fills us in on his latest reprehensible, deplorable GOP ass-kissing:
FOX NEWS, 9:27 P.M.: Which is the bigger disgrace: Joe Lieberman’s recent decision to join the reconstituted Committee on the Present Danger, or Joe Lieberman’s just-finished performance on Hannity and Colmes? Bad-mouthing the convention delegates, brushing off Florida 2000 as water under the bridge, criticizing Al Gore specifically for his post 9-11 speeches and Democrats in general for their criticisms of Bush (‘I’ve felt more comfortable here, where it’s all scripted, then I have been with what’s been said leading up to the convention’) — he was a gift that kept on giving, for segment after segment. Hannity loved him.
It could actually be worse, though. On CNN they have Ralph Reed on immediately spinning the speech before the Democrats have a chance to do it from their perspective … and, of course, it’s now 11pm in the east and people are tuning out. I just hate this he said/she said format. Although I don’t know that it’s any improvement having Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman spewing pre-fab conventional wisdom.
Does anyone think it was weird for Edwards to use the call and response “Hope Is On The Way” when four years ago the Cheney’s signature chant was “Help Is On The Way?”
Can someone explain to me why it is so hard for the major anchors to get basic facts right? Tom Brokaw just gave a big dissertation about how the campaign has to be careful that Sharpton not be perceived the way Buchanan was for his aggressive speech in San Diego when he ran against Bob Dole in 1996.
Gosh, if he does it really shouldn’t be a problem because Buchanan’s speech was actually in Houston in 1992 when he ran against Bush Sr.
The fact is that Buchanan’s speech was just one of many red meat speeches in prime time in 1992. And, one of the reasons why Buchanan’s speech was taken so seriously is because he had almost WON the New Hampshire primary that year and represented an ascendant movement within the GOP at the time. I don’t know if Sharpton even won five percent of the vote anywhere he ran.
People understand who Sharpton is. He’s a red meat speaker but he represents nothing more than entertainment. He has no influence in the party.
Update: Embarrassing mistakes which I shall not reveal corrected in the above.