Race to the House from the South

With midterm elections rapidly approaching, and all 435 members of Congress up for re-election, there are about 3 dozen Congressional races throughout the nation that both Republicans and Democrats consider critical in the determination of majority control of the US House of Representatives. According to Anthony Man of the Sun Sentinel, one of Florida's most popular newspapers, the Congressional race of the 22nd District of Florida between incumbent Clay Shaw (R-22) and Ron Klein (D) is one of those races and "may become one of the most contentious and expensive congressional races in the country this year".

My interest regarding the particular race between Shaw and Klein was sparked a few weeks ago when my family and I went to meet some old friends from the Sunshine State for dinner in the city. Their children are my age and we were good friends long ago when I lived in the 22nd District. During the course of the conversation, my friend’s brother told me he was working for Ron Klein, a Jewish challenger to Clay Shaw. This was common ground for us since I was working for a Congressman as well over the summer, Steve Israel (NY-02). He was working in the campaign office and told me this was going to be a heated race when November rolls around. And sure enough, it is.

According to opensecrets.org, Congressman Shaw has raised $3.4 million towards his campaign effort, while the challenger, [State] Senator Klein has raised approximately $2.8 million. According to one account (I cannot recall offhand), this is the closest a challenger has come to the incumbent’s funding this election cycle. In terms of money spent, both are around $1.1 million. Much of the spending from these campaigns goes to media ads, mostly television, since that is the primary medium for informing voters or potential voters. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on ads. According to the Sun Sentinel, Congressman Shaw recently spent $75,000 to air an ad just to rebuff the claim of Klein that Shaw supports the Bush Social Security Plan. The 30 second ad can be categorized as an "issue ad", which serves to just inform viewers of the candidate's policy although it was in response to Klein's claims. After viewing most of the ads aired by these contestants, it seems that they are, for the most art, "attack ads", which serve to denigrate the opponent in favor of the sponsor. Now, why should this be? Aside from the side-fact that these "attack ads" do contain much in the way of policy, they serve more primarily to frame the candidate in the mind of the viewer; be it in the pictures they choose to air, the way the candidate dresses, the music played in the background, they all serve to influence the viewer in an emotional way. It therefore seems to me that the primary battlefield on which candidates must face is the television.

Senator Klein, in an attempt to oust the Republican from office has aired numerous ads that link the Congressman with the agenda of President Bush, who happens to be going down to the district this week to rally with Shaw. And from viewing the ads, it appears Klein has succeeded in actually framing the race around the issue of supporting Bush. Why would Klein want to do this? To answer this question, we first have to look to Jan Leighley, as this is a paradigmatic example of what Leighley calls the “strategic environment” (pg. 213). In other words, the reason Klein has such good chances in defeating the 25-year incumbent is because he has harped in at the perfect stage of the historical game. What does this mean? Voters in general are vastly ignorant of the inner workings of Congress and even their own district politics. They are however, well aware of the policies of the President of the US since he is most newsworthy person out there. And this affects the local political climate as well. Ron Klein and his staff know this and are using it against Shaw. Even if Shaw has been an excellent Congressman in the past, viewers currently see strong connections between him and Bush and are thereby dissuaded from voting for him.

Congressman Shaw has fought back though. He says in one of his ads that he disagrees with the President when it comes to Social Security and the ad then goes on to describe his plan. Consequently, to no ones surprise, the race began revolving around the issue of Social Security, as it is now.

Apparently there is a strong connection between these commercial ads: one is in response to another. It is clear that both candidates realize that the road to office is through the media.

Aftergood Opens Up The Government

“Open government and free press uncover dishonesty and deception and create the opportunity to correct the human experience (Paraphrase of Steven Aftergood).”

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Project on Government Secrecy, was invited to Yeshiva University for the first time, to speak to our Media and Politics class. In his presentation he addressed mainly the issue of government secrecy, its advantages, disadvantages, and why we should care. His speech represented to many a kind of reality check on what the government of the United States is holding back from us; including astounding statistics which opened our eyes to the vast bureaucracy of secrecy. His primary point though, and the basis for which he conducts his work, is what he called “proportion”. That there does exist a boundary between what we should know, and what we shouldn’t know; our government however, is way above that boundary.

He began his presentation with an explanation of “Constitution”. In a democracy, the sharing of information is vital. Since all policy-makers are elected, the public need to know what the policies are in order to vote properly. The constitution is the means of channeling those upper echelons of the policy-producers down to the public. By holding back on information and policy, the government would be limiting our capabilities as citizens. As an example, Mr. Aftergood proposed that if the government had publicized the threat of terror attacks in September 2001, things would have been different.
What exactly is the government withholding, and should they be? To answer thins, Mr. Aftergood presented us with statistics. The are approximately 14.2 million classifications made per year, and $9,000,000,000 spent to secure it via safes and human personnel. The content of these classifications ranges from the obvious to the ridiculous. There is “Genuine National Secrecy”, which is like war plans and intelligence sources, etc. then there is “Political Secrecy” which is the cover up of potentially vulnerable government projects. The last kind was “Bureaucratic Secrecy”, which is the level of secrecy which anyone can obtain, but must have a certain reason. Should these things be classified? Yes. So, what does Aftergood do? He is a man of proportion. He believes that there are many documents that the government keeps secure that should not be. For example, he was the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the CIA, the result of which was the revelation of the annual government spending on the CIA’s operations. This revelation now gives citizens a better understanding of the destination of the tax money. The classification of that seems reasonable at first though. Mr. Aftergood showed us the Navy Laundary Code, which is classified, as well as the phone number directory for the Department of Defense. These are just some proofs of the disproportional effort the government expends in secrecy. There are also some things which deserve classification, but are however declassified. For example, a nuclear fusion bomb blueprint from 1947 – what is that doing out in the public!?
Relevant to our Media and Politics class was a contemporary example of manipulative classification. The media wanted to take pictures of flag draped coffins of American soldiers from Iraq, to publish in newspapers. The DOD would not hear of it though. As it turns out, the government was trying to manipulate the American public into thinking that everything is going well in Iraq, and if these pictures were taken, it might lower the morale of the people. They gave in and the pictures were taken.

As a practical implication of these issues, Mr. Aftergood brought up the statement by Tony Bennet, in which he demands the incarceration of the reporters who won the Pulitzer Prize for their articles which revealed to the public certain things that the government wanted to keep secret. If this were to be true, argued, Mr. Aftergood, it would truly be a violation of the 1st amendment and even I would be thrown into jail.

In conclusion, I came away with the feeling that there is too much the government is withholding from us, and I appreciate the work of Mr. Aftergood in attempting to proportion the information.

A Blog Gone Off the Left Cliff

In a blog ranting on the Republicans, Atrios writes:

"The End?
If the Democrats are unwilling to stop this, then there really isn't much point in bothering.
From what I can discern, the Senate Judiciary Committee essentially passed on responsibility to the full Senate to save the administration by enacting the Specter FISA bill, while simultaneously blocking Democratic efforts on the Committee to dilute the most offensive parts of the Specter bill. Democrats have been reluctant to pay much attention to the Specter bill, but the way in which it (a) abolishes all limits on the President's eavesdropping powers; (b) embraces the Bush administration's most radical executive power theories; and (c) virtually destroys the ability to obtain judicial review for the President's lawbreaking, renders it a bill that is at least as pernicious as anything else that is pending. It deserves full-scale attention and opposition."

Jan Leighley, in her book, Mass Media and Politics, differentiates between cognitive media and behavioral media. From the reading of blogs, such as this one, I believe it is clearly evident that the cognitive aspect is severely downplayed in light of the behavioral or emotional aspect. For example, what Atrios does in his blog is, basically, rile up his readership to his ideas and ideals that the Republicans are destroying America and its fabric, the Constitution. He brings as evidence the decision of the Senate Judiciary Committee to bring the FISA bill on wire-tapping out of committee, where it can be amended more easily, out onto the Senate floor for vote approval. To me, we have to understand and realize that, yes it is a schemey thing to do, but the Republicans and Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) in particular, must have some redeeming value on their views. Indeed they support the President, but this in some ways is a good thing… have you ever heard on national security? So, I would be very bothered to learn that this blog is among the only news sources of his readership, since he is not presenting both sides. But even if I were to accept that this is his blogging experience and he can write whatever and however he wants, one of his readers or maybe even himself should have quoted the end of the article linked by Atrios:

UPDATE II: As I've documented many times -- the most recent such documentation here -- the notion that Democratic opposition to warrantless eavesdropping will "help Republicans" is transparently false Rovian bravado that has been empirically disproven time and again. As I document here, the opposite is true -- most Americans oppose warrantless eavesdropping, and the throngs of Americans who have abandoned the President are not going to stream back to Republicans based on a non-existent desire to see him have the power to eavesdrop on Americans with no oversight.

Specifically, if the Republicans do get this bill passed, the majority of he American people will not approve. This is of course, assuming that the public are informed of political events. But I believe that for this, they will be.

As for the comments to the blog. From reading them, I got the feeling that Atrios is basically, forgive the cliché, “preaching to the choir”. There is much cursing in favor of his position and ranting about how the Republicans have abandoned the Constitution. I, personally, was expecting to see more arguments made than agreements.

As for their knowledge, it seems that since those people who commented actually did so, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are interested people. This would hold true according to Leighley, since really only those people who are actually concerned about politics, know what is going on and it is really difficult for the media to change the views, or even enlighten people on current issues.

In conclusion, I take this blog and its comments to be representative of a group of left-winged zealots who hate the Republicans and all they want to do is rant and rave about how its unfair to democrats. And for that reason, I can’t be taken to change my mind on the issues brought up. If they really wanted to try and convince others, perhaps they, or he, should write in a more balanced way, thereby, drawing a bi-partisan readership and in that way attempt to convince them of his views.

Let's Melt Snow

The White House Press Secretary is, in his most basic definition, the press correspondent of the President. In a deeper sense, he lets the press know what the President wants them to know; henceforth, only such information as relayed by the media ends up in the minds of public viewers. In this blog I will attempt to portray this definition by analyzing a recent White House press briefing conducted (no pun intended) by Tony Snow, the current Press Secretary.
The date of the conference was September 8th, 2006, three days before the 5th anniversary of September 11, 2001. It is quite clear from observing the type of questions posed at the conference, that the primary concern of the press this week, and therefore, the Bush Administration, is 9-11. Why should this be? There are other stories that are newsworthy. For example, the War in Iraq, the situation in the Middle East; and even domestic issues, such as energy consumption and yes, still the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Why should almost all the focus be on 9-11?

Do not take me the wrong way, I am well aware that 9-11 was a catalyst event in history and a tragic day indeed, but perhaps at a White House news conference there should be a wider variety of comments.

From 1999 until June 2000, in a study on how much network news coverage is devoted to national institutions, it has been shown (see Leighley, pg 115) that 60% of the time is devoted to the President of the US. The President is “inherently newsworthy”. Perhaps this is because he has gained so much power these past few decades from utilizing his “power to persuade”, which is channeled through the media, that the public view him as the symbol of the country, instead of just the leader. This being said, the press secretary would not want to “waste time” on petty issues such as domestic affairs and the future of our energy resources when he could grab the attention of the public, thereby advancing his own career and the careers of the White House correspondents, by talking about 9-11, which is the President’s primary motivator for his current political agenda – the War on Terror.

I believe that the Press Secretary uses certain questions as springboards to further the agenda of the President in a positive light while condoning the questions (or reporters) that might shed a negative light on him.

Mr. Snow began the briefing by delving straight into the President’s schedule for the coming week, day by day. This was his primary objective; for after he finished the schedule, he said, “and now I’ll take questions”, as if it was completed. However, perhaps this seemingly innocent schedule isn’t so innocent after all. The press and the government are interrelated, they count on one another for the success of their occupations. The government can use the media to further its political agendas and the media uses the government for the salability of their information. In the case of political agendas, there are certain events that, according to Leighley, are not true events, but rather, pseudo events, events planned for the sake of press coverage. This, perhaps is what Snow was doing: giving the press advance notice about what to report about, and on which day.

Please read this quote and think about the sensibility of it:
[In speaking about how the president will address the nation from the Oval Office on 9-11, he adds]:

“This is not a political speech; there are not going to be any calls to action for Congress. It will be a reflection of what September 11th has meant to the President, and to the country; the realities that it has brought to all of our attention and how we can move forward together to try to win the war on terror.”

Now, he said that there will not be any political agendas in the speech, and then he went on to say that it is for the purpose of bringing to attention the focus on the war on terror – which is the primary agenda of this administration. The reporters were asking questions about the politicization of 9-11, and Snow was answering them, but covered in thick layers of emotional talk about how America is the greatest country and we must fight for our liberty.
One very interesting volley between Snow and the Press was when one of the reporters asked if the President thinks if the Democrats win control of one of the houses of Congress, will the county be less safe. I couldn’t believe he asked it in such a straight foreword manner. Snow’s initial reaction was: “I'm just not playing ball on that.” Let’s examine this for a minute. If he answered yes, then you could throw out any logrolling the President might have had with the Democrats since that would be a slap in the face to them. And if he answered in the negative, that would seem to negate the notion that Democrats are for ending the War on Terror, which they are! As you can see, this is a tough question and Snow knew that and therefore spit out the deferring phrase and moved on to the next reporter.

In conclusion, it is clearly visible from whom the Press Secretary calls on, to what his responses are, and to the way in which he delivers his responses, that the political agenda of the White House is conveyed to the press according to discretion of the administration.

"Network" Reviewed

Updated to include picture

"Network", the 1976 film directed by Sidney Lumet is a gripping, suspenseful and mind-triggering production which delves into the inner workings of a major news corporation. It leads viewers through a media crisis that turns into a seeming plus for the corporation but which ultimately leads to its ruin.

Union Broadcasting Corporation (UBS), one of the major broadcasting corporations of the time, is in the slumps in its ratings. Howard Beale, the retiring anchor for the primary news show boosts the ratings up by announcing that he will kill himself on live TV the next week.

This throws the Corporation into a dizzying spiral in which personal agendas intermingle. The manager, Max Shoemacher, lets Beale continue his tirade after being corporately humiliated. Beale then begins to speak as an old, disgruntled, retired newsman whose "as mad as hell and can't take it anymore." He criticizes the media and its obsession with profit seeking and lures public opinion by proclaiming that he wants to just speak the truth.

The ratings skyrocket and they give Beale his own show. Shoemacher is troubled by the way the company now views Beale, more as an object to help the company, and disregarding his personal problems, such as alchohol addiction and hallucination.

Everyone at UBS is happy, when all of a sudden Beale reveals inforamtion about how UBS is going to be bought out by CCA, a Saudi owned company. He tells Americans the truth, that their minds are controlled by the media; that the media no longer cares for individual lives, but rather the bottom-line.

After rating begin to decline as a result of this cold-shouldered statement, the largest shareholder of UBS confronts Beale in his conference room and reprimands him that he has "meddled with the forces of nature", and that the lifeblood of the world is not democracy, nor even public opinion, but rather buisness... the world is one big buisness.

A group of small-time terrorists that UBS has been using to increase ratings is used to assasinate Beale on his show. The movie ends by saying that Beale was "the first known instance of a man killed because he had lousy ratings."

This movie emphasizes the conglomerate role of the broadcasting corporation which overshadows the individual components and their well-being.

Viewers observe Dianne Christianson, the network manager, who worked her way up to the top through her motivation to increase the ratings no matter what, as her life gets truned into a dehumanized, desensualized, show in which she says that she is not capable of loving someone wholeheartedly. This is because she has gotten sucked into the corporate view, that things exist solely for their redemptive value; a testmate to what can happen to those who are not careful to separate between the real and the "theater". Unfortunately, the media in this case, is the theater.

This is a must see for all who wish to see what really drives the news coverage. Perhaps this even rivals Jon Stewart's confrontation to the hosts of Crossfire.