Thursday, January 19, 2012
Media Hypocrisy and James Fallows
In 1997, James Fallows wrote a damning treatise on the media titled "Breaking the News." Fallows outlined six problems why the American public had turned on the news media in the US. 1) Treating politics like a game, 2) The revolving door where people in partisan politics moved into the media (Stephanopoulis), 3) Punditry that was more like professional wrestling than reasoned debate, 4) No mechanism to hold the press accountable for the mistakes they make, 5) Reporters were more like the elites they cover than the public they are supposed to represent, and 6) They were hypocritcal--for instance, they were quick to condemn politicians who go and speak before lobbying groups--while getting handsomely rewarded--while not holding themselves to that same standard. This was something Fallows referred to as "Buckraking."
I write this because this hypocrisy reared its head just this week. If you are following the Republican nomination fight, you know that Mitt Romney has gotten into a bit of hot water for not releasing his tax records. This past Tuesday, ABC News's Diane Sawyer was speaking to Jonathan Karl, who informed her that Romney had earned "374,000" in speaker fees alone. Here is what Sawyers said in response:
Sawyer: "Nearly $350,000, Jon?"
Karl: "374,000."
Sawyer: "Wow!"
If you go to the talent agency representing Diane Sawyer, you find that her appearance booking fee range to be "$30,001-$50,000." Now Romney claimed that he made his money in 8 speaking engagements, which means, on average, he made about $47,000 per speech. That falls within the $30k-$50k that Sawyer commands. For the same 8 speeches, she would make anywhere between $240k to $400,000k--possibly $25k more than what Romney made for his eight speeches.
Like Sawyer said: "Wow!"
I write this because this hypocrisy reared its head just this week. If you are following the Republican nomination fight, you know that Mitt Romney has gotten into a bit of hot water for not releasing his tax records. This past Tuesday, ABC News's Diane Sawyer was speaking to Jonathan Karl, who informed her that Romney had earned "374,000" in speaker fees alone. Here is what Sawyers said in response:
Sawyer: "Nearly $350,000, Jon?"
Karl: "374,000."
Sawyer: "Wow!"
If you go to the talent agency representing Diane Sawyer, you find that her appearance booking fee range to be "$30,001-$50,000." Now Romney claimed that he made his money in 8 speaking engagements, which means, on average, he made about $47,000 per speech. That falls within the $30k-$50k that Sawyer commands. For the same 8 speeches, she would make anywhere between $240k to $400,000k--possibly $25k more than what Romney made for his eight speeches.
Like Sawyer said: "Wow!"
Friday, October 28, 2011
Why Mitt Will Be The Nominee
The press has made a big deal about the lack of Republican enthusiasm for Mitt Romney to the point that they have focused on the ABM (Anyone But Mitt) candidate--whether it was Michelle Bachmann back in the summer, "Wild" Rick Perry in September, the "non" candidate Chris Christie, and now the "Herminator" Herman Cain. Each candidate was evidence that Romney was done for in the race to be the nominee. But in each case, this "flavor" of the moment focus by the media has been to the benefit of Mitt. Here's why.
The Pew Research Center released their study "The Media Primary" looking at how the candidate have fared in the press and in the blogosphere. They found that the Republican candidates, with the exception of the barely mentioned Gingrich and Santorum, have received more negative coverage in the press and in the blogosphere, though Paul was the only one who had a net positive rating online (no mystery there). For the most part, Bachmann and Perry--the two frontrunners at different points of the study, earned more and more negative coverage the more they lead the pack, resulting in a destruction of their campaigns and a free fall back into the pack. The only candidate who had consistent ratings throughout was Romney--his positive and negative numbers changed very little throughout the entire study. And Obama, who enjoyed fawning treatment in 2008, has the highest negative numbers of any candidate in the race, though Republicans won't believe it.
And now is Cain's turn. In the Pew Study, Cain was emerging as the frontrunner of the moment. In an example of media priming, Cain started to earn positive treatment back in late August, which had the effect of positive public evaluations by October--repetitive media coverage has the effect of influencing public evaluations of the candidate. In this case, a chorus of positive coverage leads to Cain as the frontrunner. So just as he starts to break from the pack, the media throws on the brakes. This Howard Kurtz article is typical of the recent coverage of Cain ("'Tired' Cain Campaign Slows Down). In it, Kurtz documents the number of gaffes Cain has recently committed:
Expect to see more just like this.
So back to Romney--this strategy of allowing other candidates to take the hits means that the media is spending no time tearing him down. All the negative coverage of Cain's weirdness, Perry's lack of message discipline, and Bachmann's campaign destruction is no time about his support for liberal causes in the past or the issues that he has flip flopped on recently. It means he goes into the start of the primaries relatively unscathed. Not too stupid.
The Pew Research Center released their study "The Media Primary" looking at how the candidate have fared in the press and in the blogosphere. They found that the Republican candidates, with the exception of the barely mentioned Gingrich and Santorum, have received more negative coverage in the press and in the blogosphere, though Paul was the only one who had a net positive rating online (no mystery there). For the most part, Bachmann and Perry--the two frontrunners at different points of the study, earned more and more negative coverage the more they lead the pack, resulting in a destruction of their campaigns and a free fall back into the pack. The only candidate who had consistent ratings throughout was Romney--his positive and negative numbers changed very little throughout the entire study. And Obama, who enjoyed fawning treatment in 2008, has the highest negative numbers of any candidate in the race, though Republicans won't believe it.
And now is Cain's turn. In the Pew Study, Cain was emerging as the frontrunner of the moment. In an example of media priming, Cain started to earn positive treatment back in late August, which had the effect of positive public evaluations by October--repetitive media coverage has the effect of influencing public evaluations of the candidate. In this case, a chorus of positive coverage leads to Cain as the frontrunner. So just as he starts to break from the pack, the media throws on the brakes. This Howard Kurtz article is typical of the recent coverage of Cain ("'Tired' Cain Campaign Slows Down). In it, Kurtz documents the number of gaffes Cain has recently committed:
- He claimed he was against abortion even in rape and incest, but then told Piers Morgan that it was up to the woman and her family to decide whether they want an abortion or not--"not some politician. Not some bureaucrat." He then walked back the statement when the criticisms flew as a statement made because he was tired;
- He told Wolf Blitzer that he would consider exchanging Gitmo detainees for US soldiers held hostage. Again, it was a mistake the came from a lack of sleep;
- He supported an electric fence to kill immigrants seeking a better life in the US--a joke, but then it wasn't;
- His 9-9-9 plan turned into a 9-0-9 plan
Expect to see more just like this.
So back to Romney--this strategy of allowing other candidates to take the hits means that the media is spending no time tearing him down. All the negative coverage of Cain's weirdness, Perry's lack of message discipline, and Bachmann's campaign destruction is no time about his support for liberal causes in the past or the issues that he has flip flopped on recently. It means he goes into the start of the primaries relatively unscathed. Not too stupid.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Angry White Man Need Not Apply
It is a common tactic during an election to try to make your opponent look unstable or "angry", the suggestion being that to be president, you must not only be sane (see the book "Night at Camp David") but also level-headed (see the movie "Fail Safe"). Thus in the 2000 Republican Primary and again in 2008, there was a common suggestion that John McCain was not fit for office because his torture while held as a POW during the Vietnam War had left him mentally unbalanced.
We're seeing the same kind of thing today, only directed at Rick Perry. This NYT article caught my eye--it is a focus on the "bad blood" between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry that dates back to the time when both were governors. If you watched the debate from Tuesday night, you saw up close how little the two men liked one another, which explains why CNN decided to place both of them next to each other on the stage.
So Romney was changing planes the other day, and his "aides" were asked to comment about Perry's aggressive approach to the debate. Here is the money quote:
Get it. Road rage activates a particular image in the minds of the audience that reads or hears it--we have all experienced road rage--the irrational waving of fists, the profanity, and perhaps the vehicle riding up on your bumper or even swerving at you. Irrational. And that is exactly why the term was used.
Get ready for more just like it in an effort to paint Perry as a crazy, ill-tempered jerk.
We're seeing the same kind of thing today, only directed at Rick Perry. This NYT article caught my eye--it is a focus on the "bad blood" between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry that dates back to the time when both were governors. If you watched the debate from Tuesday night, you saw up close how little the two men liked one another, which explains why CNN decided to place both of them next to each other on the stage.
So Romney was changing planes the other day, and his "aides" were asked to comment about Perry's aggressive approach to the debate. Here is the money quote:
But other aides public accused the Texas governor of acting like a bully at the debate. "I don't think road rage is a quality people are looking for in their next president..."
Get it. Road rage activates a particular image in the minds of the audience that reads or hears it--we have all experienced road rage--the irrational waving of fists, the profanity, and perhaps the vehicle riding up on your bumper or even swerving at you. Irrational. And that is exactly why the term was used.
Get ready for more just like it in an effort to paint Perry as a crazy, ill-tempered jerk.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Media Irresponsibility
It is interesting the lynch mob mentality created by the media in response to the jury ruling in the Casey Anthony trial--the woman acquitted for killing her daughter Caylee. The MSM had framed the story in a way that made it impossible for the public not in the courtroom to see her as anything but guilty--an immature/selfish/out of control mother, a dysfunctional familial relationship, and the hint that the father of the child was her brother. Further there were stories about an incompetent defense attorney, non-credible defense witnesses, and a "slam dunk" prosecution strategy. So when the jurors returned a "not guilty" verdict, the public blew up.
The climate has become so volatile that the judge has sealed the name of the jurors, refusing to allow the media to report who these 12 people are. But the press--seeing an opportunity to cozy up to a public that has loathed them for the past two decades--is doing what it can to reveal the identities of the jurors. For instance, there is this CBS story: The story is about Juror 12, who has become so fearful for her life that she has left her job and fled town. Here is what CBS wrote: "Juror No. 12, a red-haired woman in her 60s, told the court she worked at a Publix Grocery when she was questioned as a potential juror." Publix is a large grocery chain in the Southern US. If you are a regular shopper at this grocery, it won't be hard to figure out who this person is, in particular now that she is no longer showing up for work. CBS could have simply reported: "Juror No. 12, a red-haired woman in her 60s..." There was no reason to identify her place of employment other than helping the viewing public figure out the identity of a juror while also not violating the judge's ruling.
The climate has become so volatile that the judge has sealed the name of the jurors, refusing to allow the media to report who these 12 people are. But the press--seeing an opportunity to cozy up to a public that has loathed them for the past two decades--is doing what it can to reveal the identities of the jurors. For instance, there is this CBS story: The story is about Juror 12, who has become so fearful for her life that she has left her job and fled town. Here is what CBS wrote: "Juror No. 12, a red-haired woman in her 60s, told the court she worked at a Publix Grocery when she was questioned as a potential juror." Publix is a large grocery chain in the Southern US. If you are a regular shopper at this grocery, it won't be hard to figure out who this person is, in particular now that she is no longer showing up for work. CBS could have simply reported: "Juror No. 12, a red-haired woman in her 60s..." There was no reason to identify her place of employment other than helping the viewing public figure out the identity of a juror while also not violating the judge's ruling.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Trump the Chump
The President decided--two years into his presidency--to releasehis official birth certificate as a way to quell the "birther" debate over whether Obama is a "real" American. This on a day when Obama shook up his national security staff, which of the two got the most coverage? ABC News ran a story, featuring George Stephanopoulis, that was obviously spoon fed from the White House. The story, featuring Senior Administration Officials who tried to talk Obama out of releasing his official birth certificate, but he disregarded their advice and put the issue to rest (yeah right).
It seemed odd at first as to why Obama even bothered. Clearly this is not going to put this issue to rest. The next round of recriminations will focus on whether the copy is authentic and/or whether Obama coerced Hawaiian officials to doctor a fake certificate. Remember these accusations are from the same group of people convinced today that Bill and Hillary Clinton murdered Bill's White House counselor.
So why bother? I think Obama and his campaign advisers are engaging in a bit of 2012 gamesmanship--perhaps by elevating this issue they elevate Donald Trump as a serious contender AND they elevate an issue that most Americans believe is nutty. If Obama can help Donald into the Republican Primaries, where Trump can use his bags of money and media attention to contend, then Obama can hopefully drain the funds of the eventual nominee to nothing just to win the primary. Think of what happened to Bob Dole in 1996--by the time the nomination was secured, Dole was so broke that he could not afford advertising to respond to the tsunami of ads coming from the Clinton/Gore campaign team and their allies among affiliated groups. The sum: A trouncing of Dole in the 1996 election.
And Trump, the Chump, has zero chance of doing anything other than inflating his own sense of importance. Just like Ross Perot, Trump will receive kid glove attention among the mainstream media before the primaries begin, but once the 2012 race takes off, the media will begin to pick him apart just like they did with Perot--remember, he dropped out of the race in the summer of 1992 because the media scrutiny got too intense (and because George H.W. Bush was planning on sabotaging his daughter's wedding). And Trump has a lot of dirt to offer. To get a taste of what is to come, take a look at the recent Daily Beast profile by Howard Kurtz. What I like best of the profile, and what will make for a great ad, is this comment by Trump regarding the multiple bankruptcies he has filed: "I do play with the bankruptcy laws--they're very good for me as a way of cutting debt."
Wow! Can you say tin ear? Or perhaps the same people who produced this ad against Arlen Specter are already on it!
It seemed odd at first as to why Obama even bothered. Clearly this is not going to put this issue to rest. The next round of recriminations will focus on whether the copy is authentic and/or whether Obama coerced Hawaiian officials to doctor a fake certificate. Remember these accusations are from the same group of people convinced today that Bill and Hillary Clinton murdered Bill's White House counselor.
So why bother? I think Obama and his campaign advisers are engaging in a bit of 2012 gamesmanship--perhaps by elevating this issue they elevate Donald Trump as a serious contender AND they elevate an issue that most Americans believe is nutty. If Obama can help Donald into the Republican Primaries, where Trump can use his bags of money and media attention to contend, then Obama can hopefully drain the funds of the eventual nominee to nothing just to win the primary. Think of what happened to Bob Dole in 1996--by the time the nomination was secured, Dole was so broke that he could not afford advertising to respond to the tsunami of ads coming from the Clinton/Gore campaign team and their allies among affiliated groups. The sum: A trouncing of Dole in the 1996 election.
And Trump, the Chump, has zero chance of doing anything other than inflating his own sense of importance. Just like Ross Perot, Trump will receive kid glove attention among the mainstream media before the primaries begin, but once the 2012 race takes off, the media will begin to pick him apart just like they did with Perot--remember, he dropped out of the race in the summer of 1992 because the media scrutiny got too intense (and because George H.W. Bush was planning on sabotaging his daughter's wedding). And Trump has a lot of dirt to offer. To get a taste of what is to come, take a look at the recent Daily Beast profile by Howard Kurtz. What I like best of the profile, and what will make for a great ad, is this comment by Trump regarding the multiple bankruptcies he has filed: "I do play with the bankruptcy laws--they're very good for me as a way of cutting debt."
Wow! Can you say tin ear? Or perhaps the same people who produced this ad against Arlen Specter are already on it!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
You Can Say That Again
On today's "Talk of the Nation" on NPR, conservative Ralph Reed, former boy wonder of the evangelical movement in the US and now head of the "Faith and Freedom Coalition" was enthusiastic about the prospects of Donald Trump running for the Republican nomination--which should show you the state of the conservative movement. But here is the money quote from Reed about Trump. Host Neil Conan asks Reed if he could support Trump, Reed answers:
Of course he is pro-marriage. He has been married three times. What was disappointing is Conan did not pounce on the statement, instead a caller had to ask the question Conan wouldn't.
But apparently "The Donald's" sins have been absolved because he went on the Christian Broadcasting Network and did an interview, explaining that his three failed marriages is precisely "what this country needs." How so? He was a crappy husband and a crappy father because he "worked all the time." And this: "I'm here, I'm there. I'm home at 10 o'clock in the evening. It's not an easy, traditional thing for a woman but that's what the country needs. It needs somebody that really works and that knows what they're doing."
Totally eyes wide shut.
Well, I'm - because of my Faith and Freedom Coalition hat I'm unlikely to endorse pre-nominations or support pre-nomination. But I will say this. I'm intrigued by Donald Trump. He took a look at this in 2000. I think this is a much more serious look. I'm very pleased, and I think a lot of other social conservatives in the party are pleased that he is pro-life and pro-family and pro-marriage.
Of course he is pro-marriage. He has been married three times. What was disappointing is Conan did not pounce on the statement, instead a caller had to ask the question Conan wouldn't.
But apparently "The Donald's" sins have been absolved because he went on the Christian Broadcasting Network and did an interview, explaining that his three failed marriages is precisely "what this country needs." How so? He was a crappy husband and a crappy father because he "worked all the time." And this: "I'm here, I'm there. I'm home at 10 o'clock in the evening. It's not an easy, traditional thing for a woman but that's what the country needs. It needs somebody that really works and that knows what they're doing."
Totally eyes wide shut.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
New York Times Bullshit
So where is the objectivity in this? Where is the sense?
Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times writes this article about the selection of the 2012 of the Democratic National Convention, which will be held in North Carolina this go round. The White House got to make the final decision as the head of the Party, and chose North Carolina (vs Cleveland, Minneapolis, and St. Louis) as a signal that the Party believes NC is a place where Democrats can make in-roads. And Zeleny makes this point in the second paragraph:
They also note that St. Louis did not get selected because:
The state has slipped out of the Democratic Party's reach in recent presidential elections and it is not expected to be among the top tier of places where Mr. Obama will compete in 2012.
Now the inexplicable happens. Based on "party officials familiar with the selection process," Senator Claire McCaskill--a Democrat representing MO. in the Senate--was privately telling the White House that she did not want the Convention held in MO because "her re-election would be complicated if the convention were held in St. Louis."
What?
Again, what???
Zeleny does not explain precisely how this would complicate her re-election bid. It seems readily apparent that the "party officials" speaking on anonymity were more likely Republican Party officials and not Democrats, because there is no angle to this story where McCaskill is helped by losing the Convention, nor is the administration helped by putting an important ally in danger by going public with such an awful story.
So Mr. Zeleny--who are these sources? Speak up. Or at least explain why McCaskill is helped by pushing the administration to skip her State in 2012.
Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times writes this article about the selection of the 2012 of the Democratic National Convention, which will be held in North Carolina this go round. The White House got to make the final decision as the head of the Party, and chose North Carolina (vs Cleveland, Minneapolis, and St. Louis) as a signal that the Party believes NC is a place where Democrats can make in-roads. And Zeleny makes this point in the second paragraph:
The selection was the White House’s first major strategic decision of the presidential race, and displayed the desire of Democrats to retain some of the states they carried in 2008 for the first time in a generation.
They also note that St. Louis did not get selected because:
The state has slipped out of the Democratic Party's reach in recent presidential elections and it is not expected to be among the top tier of places where Mr. Obama will compete in 2012.
Now the inexplicable happens. Based on "party officials familiar with the selection process," Senator Claire McCaskill--a Democrat representing MO. in the Senate--was privately telling the White House that she did not want the Convention held in MO because "her re-election would be complicated if the convention were held in St. Louis."
What?
Again, what???
Zeleny does not explain precisely how this would complicate her re-election bid. It seems readily apparent that the "party officials" speaking on anonymity were more likely Republican Party officials and not Democrats, because there is no angle to this story where McCaskill is helped by losing the Convention, nor is the administration helped by putting an important ally in danger by going public with such an awful story.
So Mr. Zeleny--who are these sources? Speak up. Or at least explain why McCaskill is helped by pushing the administration to skip her State in 2012.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Complicity
The "New York Times" had a good expose yesterday on law schools in the United States and how "corrupt" many of them have become--fudging statistics on post-graduate employment, for example, to create a higher percentage of graduates in the job market than what really exists. The "Times" characterized their fudging of numbers in terms of "Enron-like" manipulation, referring to the defunct energy company that had cooked its books to the point of leading hundreds of thousands of individuals to bankruptcy.
The "Times" also was critical of the ratings system in "US News & World Report," which knowingly publishes these fudged figures on the best and the worst law schools--ratings, by the way, that are used by thousands of individuals every year to determine where they want to spend their hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition. Here is the part of the story that I liked the best, and most applicable to this blog:
So much for our media--the "watchdog" meant to protect our interests.
The "Times" also was critical of the ratings system in "US News & World Report," which knowingly publishes these fudged figures on the best and the worst law schools--ratings, by the way, that are used by thousands of individuals every year to determine where they want to spend their hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition. Here is the part of the story that I liked the best, and most applicable to this blog:
And what about U.S. News? The editors could, but won’t unilaterally demand better data from law schools. “Do we have the power to do that? Yes, I think we do,” said Robert Morse, who oversees the law school rankings. “But we’d have to create a whole new definition of ‘employed,’ and it would be awkward if U.S. News imposed that definition by itself. It would be preferable if the A.B.A. took a leadership role in this.”
So much for our media--the "watchdog" meant to protect our interests.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
The Network Schadenfreude
It appears that the networks are exacting a good bit of schadenfreude against the Fox Network for ruthlessly bilking Gabe Okoye and his girlfriend Brittany Mayti--contestants on the game show "Million Dollar Money Drop"--who lost $800,000 on a question they answered correctly. The couple has appeared on the morning news shows explaining how they would use the money to pay for their upcoming nuptials. The show even offered to bring the couple back--in essence--giving them a redo to make amends and quell what has become a public relations disaster. The couple has demurred, claiming they aren't sure they could withstand the pressure.
But what this episode has demonstrated to all of us is the power of media framing--by highlighting certain facts while downplaying others. In this case, highlighting the aggrieved couple while downplaying other facts that casts a doubt on whether they should really be aggrieved.
The way the show works is as follows: "Each team...is given a million dollars at the start of the...game. They answer seven questions, each time deciding how much they want to wager on three possible answers. Whatever they wager on the right answer is what they get to keep. Wager nothing on the right answer and they're out of the game."
So back to the controversial episode. The couple was asked a question about what came first. they had $880k, where they put $80k on the Sony Walkman and $800k on Post-it notes. The show said the Walkman was first, which technically is not the right answer because the 3M, the company that makes Post-it notes, had sold them a year earlier than the Walkman, only under a different name. Here is where most newscasts end their story. In reality, they still kept playing, only with $80k and not $800k. The next question they came to, they lost it all. So let's pick it up here from the game's host, Kevin Pollak (what he is doing hosting game shows is beyond me):
"They never had a chance to win that money. Ever. No matter what. They got the last question wrong. None of the clips show the last question."
Which is right. Had the screw up not happened, they would have taken their $800k and blown it on the next answer, coming out of it with less than they have now--at least now they have an invitation to return and try again.
But what this episode has demonstrated to all of us is the power of media framing--by highlighting certain facts while downplaying others. In this case, highlighting the aggrieved couple while downplaying other facts that casts a doubt on whether they should really be aggrieved.
The way the show works is as follows: "Each team...is given a million dollars at the start of the...game. They answer seven questions, each time deciding how much they want to wager on three possible answers. Whatever they wager on the right answer is what they get to keep. Wager nothing on the right answer and they're out of the game."
So back to the controversial episode. The couple was asked a question about what came first. they had $880k, where they put $80k on the Sony Walkman and $800k on Post-it notes. The show said the Walkman was first, which technically is not the right answer because the 3M, the company that makes Post-it notes, had sold them a year earlier than the Walkman, only under a different name. Here is where most newscasts end their story. In reality, they still kept playing, only with $80k and not $800k. The next question they came to, they lost it all. So let's pick it up here from the game's host, Kevin Pollak (what he is doing hosting game shows is beyond me):
"They never had a chance to win that money. Ever. No matter what. They got the last question wrong. None of the clips show the last question."
Which is right. Had the screw up not happened, they would have taken their $800k and blown it on the next answer, coming out of it with less than they have now--at least now they have an invitation to return and try again.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Why The Times Is Wrong
The New York Times has an editorial--one of many editorials--urging the Supreme Court to allow televisions to broadcast live from the Court. This is a popular position, and one the Congress has been pushing for years. Leading the charge has been Senator Arlen Specter (D. PA), who has made this a key issue for years, asking potential Supreme Court nominees if they would support bringing television to the Supreme Court. Currently. Specter has a resolution (S.Res.339) expressing the "sense of the Senate in support of permitting the televising of Supreme Court proceedings." And the Times editorial says that "Senator Specter was right when he argued that the rights of all American would be 'substantially enhanced' if we could watch the court...."
To bolster the point about opening the Court, the Times editorial writes: "Many state appellate courts have been televising oral arguments for years. The new Supreme Court of the UK does so, to high praise in Britain." These are false equivalencies. First, the media system in the UK is not the media system in the US. The extensive public broadcasting system in UK and Europe consistently presents politics in a different way than the commercial system in the US--here in the US, politics is pitched as a game or battle between "players", in a frame that has been known to increase public cynicism. The way in which our media covers Congress and the Presidency has led, in part, to the decline in trust in those two institutions. As for the state appellate courts, they are not the Supreme Court. They are not likely to attract the attention that the Supreme Court will. Furthermore, the evidence on television coverage of state courts shows that it does nothing to enhance public understanding of what the courts do--the coverage trends to the coverage of other issues--void of context and focused on those cases that are most violent or unusual. And what gets covered is the opening arguments and closing arguments. The Times doesn't mention that.
So there is the argument in the abstract that you should have more transparency in the representative institutions to make sure democracy functions like it should. But in reality, television coverage of our representative institutions has actually hurt democracy. The Supreme Court knows this. The Times should as well.
To bolster the point about opening the Court, the Times editorial writes: "Many state appellate courts have been televising oral arguments for years. The new Supreme Court of the UK does so, to high praise in Britain." These are false equivalencies. First, the media system in the UK is not the media system in the US. The extensive public broadcasting system in UK and Europe consistently presents politics in a different way than the commercial system in the US--here in the US, politics is pitched as a game or battle between "players", in a frame that has been known to increase public cynicism. The way in which our media covers Congress and the Presidency has led, in part, to the decline in trust in those two institutions. As for the state appellate courts, they are not the Supreme Court. They are not likely to attract the attention that the Supreme Court will. Furthermore, the evidence on television coverage of state courts shows that it does nothing to enhance public understanding of what the courts do--the coverage trends to the coverage of other issues--void of context and focused on those cases that are most violent or unusual. And what gets covered is the opening arguments and closing arguments. The Times doesn't mention that.
So there is the argument in the abstract that you should have more transparency in the representative institutions to make sure democracy functions like it should. But in reality, television coverage of our representative institutions has actually hurt democracy. The Supreme Court knows this. The Times should as well.
