It’s OK If You’re a Republican

A comment on a story about the latest in the Ensign affairs sums up the press’s reaction to sexual indiscretions.

It’s important to remember that when a Democrat has a sex scandal (Clinton, Spitzer, Edwards, etc.), a hypocritical, immoral adulterer has been exposed for what he is.

When a Republican is involved (Ensign, Sanford, Vitter, etc.), a decent, God-fearing Christian only showed he is human, and this uncharacteristic lapse in judgment should not overshadow his strong moral character and dedication to his constituents.

Any questions? Remember IOKIYAR (It’s Okay If You’re A Republican).

No Proof, But Post Story Makes Front Page

Here’s all you need to know about Sandhya Somashekhar’s front page story about the Virginia governor’s race.

There is no empirical evidence [emphasis added] at this point in Virginia’s race for governor showing that huge numbers of voters think like Cleland and will respond by sending a message to Washington.

But that didn’t stop the Post reporter from fashioning an entire argument about the dynamics of the governor’s race based on the opinions of two individuals, one of whom was clearly ambivalent.  More likely, the reporter decided the slant she wanted and found two people who confirmed it, even though there is “no empirical evidence.”

This is another example of the lazy journalism increasingly practiced by The Washington Post, especially when it comes to the Virginia governor’s race.  We had another example Monday, when Roz Helderman wasted newsprint on a story that Democrats are still running against Bush.  The story was written for the political insiders but offered no help to general Post readers in deciding who to vote for.  Instead of writing stories about the issues, they write about the political dynamics, much of which they make up.

Regarding today’s story, there is mention that 52 percent of Americans support Obama, but it’s described as “the lowest number of his tenure.”  Indeed, it is also twice the number of his predecessor.  Ah, but that’s not the story she wanted to write.

According to a late July poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, 78% of Americans think it is at least somewhat likely that “Obama will bring real change in the direction of the country.”  A month after his election that figure was at 81%.  The margin of error is 3.1%.  Which is to say, it’s about the same.  Meanwhile, you have 61% of Americans saying they have an unfavorable position of Republicans in Congress.

So why would someone vote Republican in the Virginia’s governor’s race.  I don’t know, but one can argue it has nothing to do with the Obama administration. 

An Evergreen Story

No, it’s not a story put on the shelf to run when real news is short. It’s about Evergreen, Colorado, our home away from home.

A couple of years ago when told about Evergreen, the husband of our former English aupair thought it was a delightful name. Great Britain didn’t seem to have such autological names.

Evergreen is not exactly ever green. It is this year due to heavy spring rains, but it can be pretty brown this time of year. In fact, what I like about it is that it is dry. The humidity is low and it claims more sunny days per year than San Diego.

Perhaps more precisely, Evergreen is ever white. No more so than many small towns in America, but it is striking to someone who lives in the ethnically diverse Washington, D.C. suburbs. The people who work at Home Depot, McDonalds and all manner of businesses are always white. It’s odd how odd that feels when you are used to something else.

What drew us to Evergreen, however, were two specific people – my brother and sister who moved there about seven years ago. My wife, worried that I’ve had one too many biking accidents where I jarred my brain, wanted us to have a fall back residence for the time when I will need to be wheeled around while drooling. We bought a place in Evergreen so my younger siblings could share her burden.

It is a delightful change of pace, though not one I’m prepared to commit to forever. The town is bifurcated.  The northern part of town lies adjacent to I-70, about 20 minutes from downtown Denver.  There are many well-appointed and large homes there.  And I’m told those folks never make it to downtown Evergreen, which is a collection of funky restaurants like the Wildflower Cafe and craft shops populated by tourists on the weekends and refugees from the 60s during the week.  The town attracts many bikers.  The bicyclists usually just pass through.  The Harley riders often stop at the Little Bear Saloon, a honky-tonk with its own unusual history.

The move there did introduce me to a wonderful surprise — the Evergreen Jazz Festival, which just completed its eighth annual edition. Being a jazz fan, I’ve become involved, acting as its media relations contact. It’s fun and rewarding to promote a music I think is wonderful.

But true to its venue, the Evergreen Jazz Festival is homogeneous. Among about 40-50 musicians performing there, only one is black. How can you have a jazz festival without black musicians. When you think about it, that’s pretty hard to do, I would think. But then you look at its audience. It’s all white. I saw maybe one or two Hispanic looking folks, but no African-Americans that I recall.

The musicians are chosen by the festival’s founder. I have no reason to think he’s biased. And it may be that because the festival focuses on “traditional jazz,” it doesn’t attract a lot of black Americans. I’ve heard that is typical of trad jazz festivals. A quick survey of some festival sites does reveal a disproportionate number of white musicians and audience members. Why that is I’m not sure.evergreen lake 2

Absent evidence that I’m involved in some kind of white supremacy conspiracy, I’ll continue to help out the Evergreen festival. It’s an all-volunteer effort with really great musicians and a beautiful setting.

One of my favorites is a guy named Carl Sonny Leyland. I had arranged for him to appear on a radio show the night he got into town. He didn’t even have to time to eat when I showed up at his door to take him to the studio. He has sideburns and combed back hair, looking every bit a 50s rockabilly star. He was wearing jeans and a t-shirt. Not a colored t-shirt with a logo or graphic on it. No, just a white t-shirt. And that’s how he went to the radio studio. But he played the hell out of that piano.

I can’t say I’m a trad jazz diehard. I like much of post-war (WWII) jazz. But my annual 10-day sojourn to Evergreen was again a joy.

That Time of Year

The front page photo on Monday’s Washington Post shows a smiling Redskins coach Jim Zorn throwing a blocking dummy at a back-up quarterback.  After describing the picture, the cutline concludes, “Complete coverage of the fourth day of training camp in Sports.”

Do we really need complete coverage of the fourth day of training camp?  Really?  There’s no better use of newsprint?

Anonymity in the Blogosphere

In the past, I’ve expressed my distaste for anonymous bloggers and commenters.  Now the Lawrence (Kan.)Journal World & News tried to write about how people comment on news sites and blogs.  The paper discerned who its top 10 commenters were and asked them to participate in the story.  But to do so, they would need to reveal their real names. 

Of the 10, two use their real names, and one no longer actively comments.  The other seven refused to reveal themselves.

I think it’s cowardly.  The excuse that they would face retaliation in their professional lives or from those who oppose their views doesn’t hold water with me.  If you can’t stand behind what you say, don’t say it. 

I think it’s just another way of people refusing to take responsibility as they might do in other aspects of their lives.  Someone else is to blame and someone else needs to bail them out, but it’s not their fault.

The right to free speech was written into our constitution without the writers having the benefit of what was to come, of course.  While you could not reliably express yourself orally without people knowing who you are, you could in print, and many people did.  They simply wrote a pamphlet, didn’t sign it and distributed it.  So you could say that our founders were OK with the idea of anonymous comments.

Still, I’m not.   Two hundred odd years ago, you had to physically  distribute those comments to people one by one.  Today, those comments are read by millions instantly and then forwarded on to another million or so.

The reason most anonymous commenters do it, I suspect, is that they are afraid to defend their views and take the chance that those views might hurt them.

“The Can’t-Do Nation”

Harold Meyerson has a column in today’s Washington Post complaining about the “Blue Dogs” hindering Obama’s healthcare goals.   They have many reasons – they are in red districts, their new, and they really worry about – everything.

While Meyerson says it reveals our country’s  inability to meet our national challenges, the practical interpretations by the electorate is the Democrats can’t govern.

Say what you will about the GOP under George Bush, they may have punted on the big problems, but its ability to pass most of its agenda is viewed as at least competent in governing. 

In 2010, if they pick the issues that voters are worried about – the economy, health, etc. – and put forth solutions, those voters just might say, “At least they can get something done.”

No New Taxes!?

This is astounding.

One of the bigger, but more under-reported, sea changes in American politics is how any kind of tax increase — whether in war or peace, good economic times or bad ones — has become absolutely unacceptable. After all, Ronald Reagan raised taxes. So did every modern American president involved in war, until George W. Bush. But not anymore. Indeed, as one of us pointed out on Nightly News last night, only 29% (or 157) of the 535 and House members and senators serving in Congress were around the last time — 1993! — the federal government raised taxes, and that was on gasoline. Think about that for a moment: Congress hasn’t really had a TOUGH vote in 16 years, if one defines a "TOUGH" vote as the government asking for a financial sacrifice from the American people. This is the political climate that President Obama faces in trying to pay for health reform. Republicans and some Democrats are opposed to a tax on the wealthy, and unions and Obama’s political strategists are against taxing health benefits.

What is astounding about it is not that taxes haven’t been raised in such a long while.  It’s not that so few Congressmen have ever had to raise taxes.  It’s not even that Republicans have so cowed Democrats on this issue.

What’s astounding is that it is “under-reported.”  Did it just occur to NBC reporters that this was happening?  If it’s under-reported it’s because journalists haven’t been doing their jobs.  A look back and putting the tax issue in historical context is something they should have done long ago.

Characterizing Poll Numbers

I’m thinking that if newspapers are to survive, they need a better way of delivering information.  It’s not only a paper vs. web dichotomy.  A lot of folks, me included, cannot envision a world without a paper to hold in one’s hands and the ability to have a story catch your eye while reading another.  That’s harder to do on the web.

One way to improve delivery is to re-think the need for every story to be a narrative.  But I’ll leave the larger question for a future post.

But certainly, a story that doesn’t lend itself to a narrative is reporting a poll.  Sure, some analysis is necessary for some readers.  But too often the interpretation inherent in a narrative is worthless.  Today’s poll story in The Washington Post is one example,  It would have been a better use of newsprint to simply present a chart with the key questions (if the entire poll results are too space consuming).

The problem comes with the headline and adjectives and adverbs that inevitably accompany poll stories.  The Post’s headline is “Poll Shows Obama Slipping on Key Issues.”  That’s the most many readers will see.  It’s accurate, but polls need to be taken in their entirety.  And the picture is more mixed.

At the same time, there is no slackening in public desire for Obama to keep pressing for action on the major issues of the economy, health care and the deficit. Majorities think he is either doing the right amount or should put greater emphasis on each of these issues.

So whatever his slackening of support about his specific policies, folks want him to continue fighting to change things.  And in many ways, politics is an either or proposition. 

Obama’s handling of the economy, the deficit and health care reform outpaces the Republicans by about 20 points.

So if his handling of things is 20 points better that GOPers, and folks want him to continue fighting, a stalemate is not what they’re looking for, much less the GOP solutions (if any).

And while, 49 percent approves of his handling of the healthcare issue,

On health care, the poll, conducted by telephone Wednesday through Saturday, found that a majority of Americans (54 percent) approve of the outlines of the legislation now heading toward floor action. The measure would institute new individual and employer insurance mandates and create a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. Its costs would be paid in part through new taxes on high-income earners.

What that “legislation” is, is questionable as there are several plans now working their way through Congress.

But the problem I have with many of the poll stories is that the reporters feel compelled to interpret them for us.  The tenor of this report is that Obama is slipping and people are losing confidence in him, despite the findings that most people still consider him a strong leader.

Obama’s leadership attributes remain highly rated, despite some slippage. Seven in 10 call him a strong leader, two in three say he cares about the problems of people like themselves, and just over six in 10 say he fulfilled a central campaign pledge and has brought needed change to Washington.

As an example of perhaps misplaced adverbs,

More than three-quarters of all Americans say they are worried about the direction of the economy over the next few years, down only marginally since Obama’s inauguration. Concerns about personal finances have also abated only moderately since January. [emphasis added]

That “moderate” abatement in concern about their personal finances is seven percent, from 70 percent in January who were worried to 63 percent today.

Yet the key figures that support the thrust of the story – he’s slipping significantly — are reflected in eight to nine point drops:

Approval of Obama’s handing the economy dropped from 60 percent in February, the earliest date available in the poll, to 52 percent, an eight point drop.

Approval of Obama’s handing the economy dropped from 57 percent in April, the earliest date available in the poll, to 49 percent, an eight point drop.

Approval of Obama’s handing the deficit dropped from 52 percent in March, the earliest date available in the poll, to 43 percent, a nine point drop.

So what makes an eight to nine point drop significant enough to support the thrust of the story but a seven percent drop is only “moderate.”

The answer is simply:  If the story was “Obama drop in support for policies is only moderate,” well, it might not make the front page.

The Post would have been better of simply printing a chart of the results, and let us interpret them.

The Poll Number to Be Worried About

The Washington Post has a poll out this morning (more about it later), but the poll to be worried is the Rasmussen poll number.

Eighty percent (80%) of Americans now say Wall Street benefited more from the bailout of the financial industry than the average U.S. taxpayer.

If Obama is viewed as caring more about Wall Street than Main Street, he’s finished.