There's a new word that needs adding to Webster's Dictionary this year, and that word is "dobbs'ed." The word simply means that you have watched a news program and mistook an editorial comment for news. The essence of being dobbs'ed is that the program is ostensibly a fair and balanced news program, not an editorial show. Thus, the mistake is no fault of your own, but rather the fault of the obsession with politically-minded news shows promulgated by the 24-hour news market.
The origin of the word is CNN's celebrated journalist Lou Dobbs. On April 15, 2005, Lou Dobbs reported on his show Lou Dobbs Tonight that the migration of illegal Mexican immigrants across the Mexican-American border in Texas had caused an increase in cases of leprosy in the United States. This was not a small increase. Dobbs reported some 7,000 new cases of leprosy caused by illegally migrating Mexicans in the past three years (2002-2005). Expendable to Dobbs, apparently, was the truth. In fact, only some 150 cases of leprosy had been reported in the United States during that three-year period. The 7,000 cases Lou Dobbs reported was the number of leprosy cases reported in the United States overall over the last 30 years (not 3 years)! What's more, there's no link whatsoever, except for the one fabricated by Dobbs, to Mexican immigrants, much less illegal Mexican immigrants!
What actually happened here is readily apparent. Dobbs managed to get the numbers wrong and magically link the falsified numbers to a fabricated demographic in order to propogate his own political agenda. Not surprisingly, Dobbs is a well-known and outspoken critic of Mexican immigration. He openly supports programs like the Minutemen Project in Texas, and is against amnesty or path to citizenship proposals for Mexican immigrants. This was no mistake. This was an open and brazen fabrication by an established journalist in an effort to support a political agenda during prime time on a nationally recognized and celebrated all-news channel. Lou Dobbs is as dishonest as his facts are wrong. Remarkably, Dobbs's wife is a Mexican-American (and was arrested, no less, for carrying a loaded weapon into an airport)!
But what really frosts me is that Dobbs, though criticized, never missed a day of work. He was never censured and never suspended by CNN. His fabrication, though causing a stir among critics of the show, was never really questioned. How could an established news program make such a mistake? Where did the link to illegal Mexican immigrants come from? Isn't there something wrong with a journalist fabricating reports to advance a political agenda?
And finally, why the double standard? On April 4, 2007 (something about April apparently), Don Imus was suspended and kicked off the air altogether shortly thereafter for racially disparaging comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team. While inexusable in its own right, Imus's show is a long-standing political satire show. Imus is a essentially a smart and politically savvy comedian! Dobbs is apparently a journalist! Shouldn't a complete fabrication on a news program by an established journalist be a more serious offense than insensitive comments of a comedian? Isn't Dobbs charging illegal immigrants from Mexico with transporting a deadly disease to the country equally as racially insensitive as Imus's comment?
Which brings me to another problem with Dobbs. While we are not encouraged to take Imus's show seriously -- it's held out as purely as entertainment -- Lou Dobbs is held out to the public as a fair and balanced news program. While it's plainly editorial to me and many other people (including, CNN I think they would admit if pressed), there are no doubt tens of thousands of Americans who tune in nightly to Dobbs and believe they are watching news. And that's the most offensive part about Dobbs's lies. He knows exactly what he is doing when feeds a racist line to viewers who are looking for the statistic to back up their already xenophobic outlook on the Mexican immigration issue. I have little doubt that the next day all across the country, in coffee shops and by water coolers everywhere, some poor sap was quoting Dobbs and the fabricated leprosy issue as reason enough to send every brown Mexican home and keep all the rest out. You, my friend, have been dobbs'ed.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Kindergarten Cops
I wonder sometimes how dumb they really think we are. Politicians make, in my mind, one repeated and crucial error: they think we are all dumb. There's little doubt that some of us are definitely dumb. We can be manipulated by words and the media and are all too quick to anoint or discount candidates based solely on image. But, for the most part, I think, we are not so dumb and are genuinely interested in politics and building a better America. It appears, unfortunately, we often seem dumb as we follow the lead of the intelligent politicians and candidates acting dumbly.
For example, as the economy slides into a recession and the housing crisis continues unabated, the candidates, along with the American public, have shifted their attention from the war in Iraq to the waning economy. Indeed, the economy always is, and rightfully should be, a key focus of both the American public and every politician. And so, in an effort to appear the candidate that is strongest on economics, those running for office quickly adopted positions on "economic stimulus packages." And on both sides of the aisle in Congress, entrenched members of both parties seeking to appear capable of bipartisan cooperation on the veritable eve of the national Presidential election, found common ground on the President's proposed tax cuts. But this is not solution at all. Shouldn't we be focusing instead on bipartisan solutions to larger economic issues that squarely face the long term challenges to sustained health of the US economy? What about finding solutions to the very real problem that more and more American corporations (and the jobs that go with them) are moving overseas for cheaper labor and tax benefits? Surely, it would stimulate the economy in the long term to bring jobs back to the US, and keep those that have no left yet here in the homeland. I would imagine this kind of message and a solution to this particular problem would resonate with the "dumb" unemployed citizens out in Detroit.
And what should we do about the overcomplicated, arcane, and punishing tax system? Surely, there must be a better, if not simpler, way of taxing the American public. Right now, the middle class, and especially the upper middle class, bears the largest portion of the tax burden. Why not develop a plan to diversify the tax burden? And what about focusing on a plan to slowly shift some if not all of the current taxation to a consumer-based tax system? If you want the tax system to reflect "freedom," surely there is not greater way to do this then to allow the citizen to control, to a certain extent, the amount of taxes they absorb by choosing where they spend their money. And wouldn't that allow some people live simply, opting instead to save and retire early.
And shouldn't there be a more intelligent discussion about how to deal with the immigration issues facing this country? Proposals like building a wall between the United States and Mexico, and separating parents from children in order to send some illegal people "home" play to the basest of American reactions and toy with the difficult racist and xenophobic tendencies in us all. Even if our already sputtering economy could actually absorb the loss of 11 million critical Mexicans, shouldn't our government elevate the discussion? In grammar school, I remember learning about the "melting pot" and reading the history of many of immigrant tearfully rejoicing as they first laid eyes on the Statue of Liberty. Once a beacon of freedom, we surely have gone a long way off course when the discussion of immigration revolves around erecting walls rather than installing beacons of welcome. My solution, move the Statute of Liberty from New York harbor to the Mexican border, and teach those Texans how to work an Ellis Island-type registration center. It's high time we re-opened our borders to the less fortunate, lest we lose our identity as a nation altogether in the name of counter-terrorism.
And speaking of counter-terrorism, how has this nation advanced, if at all, since 9/11 on the issue of homeland security? Perhaps politicians have so obfuscated the issue with the Mexican immigration saga to draw our already meager attention away from the fact that nothing has been done of substance to prevent another attack on this country. Even us dumb Americans can separate the issues. Even we know that the war in Iraq and the immigration issues are something quite apart from finding an effective way to gather and act on intelligence and from developing means of protecting our currently woefully unprotected ports.
Indeed, we who are so dumb know there are big issues facing this country that need intelligent people to find solutions. But how can we advance when all that is ever discussed are kindergarten-type solutions to our doctorate-level problems. We, the dumb an downtrodden, are happy to elevate the discussion, if only you candidates were too.
For example, as the economy slides into a recession and the housing crisis continues unabated, the candidates, along with the American public, have shifted their attention from the war in Iraq to the waning economy. Indeed, the economy always is, and rightfully should be, a key focus of both the American public and every politician. And so, in an effort to appear the candidate that is strongest on economics, those running for office quickly adopted positions on "economic stimulus packages." And on both sides of the aisle in Congress, entrenched members of both parties seeking to appear capable of bipartisan cooperation on the veritable eve of the national Presidential election, found common ground on the President's proposed tax cuts. But this is not solution at all. Shouldn't we be focusing instead on bipartisan solutions to larger economic issues that squarely face the long term challenges to sustained health of the US economy? What about finding solutions to the very real problem that more and more American corporations (and the jobs that go with them) are moving overseas for cheaper labor and tax benefits? Surely, it would stimulate the economy in the long term to bring jobs back to the US, and keep those that have no left yet here in the homeland. I would imagine this kind of message and a solution to this particular problem would resonate with the "dumb" unemployed citizens out in Detroit.
And what should we do about the overcomplicated, arcane, and punishing tax system? Surely, there must be a better, if not simpler, way of taxing the American public. Right now, the middle class, and especially the upper middle class, bears the largest portion of the tax burden. Why not develop a plan to diversify the tax burden? And what about focusing on a plan to slowly shift some if not all of the current taxation to a consumer-based tax system? If you want the tax system to reflect "freedom," surely there is not greater way to do this then to allow the citizen to control, to a certain extent, the amount of taxes they absorb by choosing where they spend their money. And wouldn't that allow some people live simply, opting instead to save and retire early.
And shouldn't there be a more intelligent discussion about how to deal with the immigration issues facing this country? Proposals like building a wall between the United States and Mexico, and separating parents from children in order to send some illegal people "home" play to the basest of American reactions and toy with the difficult racist and xenophobic tendencies in us all. Even if our already sputtering economy could actually absorb the loss of 11 million critical Mexicans, shouldn't our government elevate the discussion? In grammar school, I remember learning about the "melting pot" and reading the history of many of immigrant tearfully rejoicing as they first laid eyes on the Statue of Liberty. Once a beacon of freedom, we surely have gone a long way off course when the discussion of immigration revolves around erecting walls rather than installing beacons of welcome. My solution, move the Statute of Liberty from New York harbor to the Mexican border, and teach those Texans how to work an Ellis Island-type registration center. It's high time we re-opened our borders to the less fortunate, lest we lose our identity as a nation altogether in the name of counter-terrorism.
And speaking of counter-terrorism, how has this nation advanced, if at all, since 9/11 on the issue of homeland security? Perhaps politicians have so obfuscated the issue with the Mexican immigration saga to draw our already meager attention away from the fact that nothing has been done of substance to prevent another attack on this country. Even us dumb Americans can separate the issues. Even we know that the war in Iraq and the immigration issues are something quite apart from finding an effective way to gather and act on intelligence and from developing means of protecting our currently woefully unprotected ports.
Indeed, we who are so dumb know there are big issues facing this country that need intelligent people to find solutions. But how can we advance when all that is ever discussed are kindergarten-type solutions to our doctorate-level problems. We, the dumb an downtrodden, are happy to elevate the discussion, if only you candidates were too.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Obama's Balancing Beam
Interested viewers of last night's Democratic debate in South Carolina witnessed a somewhat vitriolic exchange between Hillary and Obama that bordered on the "getting personal." The exchange last night exposes a difficult balancing acts that politicians vying for public office must face. While defending their records and qualifications for office, politicians must do so without seeming, well, defensive.
In an age of classless politics, candidates cannot afford to rely exclusively on a positive message, passively permitting adversaries, who are by nature prone to hyperbole if not outright fabrication, to control the subject of discussion and, in the process, dismantle their qualifications for office. The danger of attempting this strategy can be seen in the few weeks since Iowa. Obama, seemingly committed to a strategy of staying positive, has seen his momentum (and nearly his lead in the delegate count) evaporate. In staying positive, Obama allowed Hillary to control the issues -- she focused the American voting public on the languishing economy diverting attention away from the Iraq War, a topic she seems endlessly defensive on as a result of her yay vote for the Iraq war -- and further permitted Hillary to create an objectively unfair perception of him as an inexperienced rookie incapable of the nation's highest office. The danger of this tact was never more apparent than in the previous debate in Las Vegas where a strictly positive Obama came across as passive and soft and seemed to cede points to the more aggressive and presidential Hillary on a regular basis.
But coming out too aggressive can have a down side too. In the days leading up to New Hampshire, Hillary capitalized on a perception that the men in the race had teamed up on her at the debate. Even coming out hard in one's own defense can be a huge political mistake. Obama went on the offensive last night at the South Carolina debate, fairly accusing Hillary and Bill of hyperbole and in certain cases, downright fabrication, regarding his record and experience. His attack edged toward the personal in certain spots when he drew particular attention to Hillary's lucrative position on the WalMart Board of Directors (part of her storied 35 years of experience) and to Bill's incessant and "troubling" loose use of the facts. While his comments drew some applause at the debate, the spin from the Hillary camp followed this morning in predictable fashion. Obama, in taking the offensive, is desperate and frustrated. Indeed, this is the danger. Americans hate kiss asses, but they hate save asses even more. Seeming mean, desperate or frustrated is tantamount to admitting the nomination is lost.
So what is an Obama to do? When he is on message, staying positive, espousing change and delivering inspiring rhetoric, he is perceived as passive, weak and lacking in substance. But in being aggressive or defending his record, Obama risks coming across as a bully, or worse, as defensive and desperate. This all leads us to Obama's biggest shortcoming so far, his inability to wrest the tenor and subject of these primary battles away from Hillary. Because Hillary has guided the issues masterfully up to this point and created resonating, albeit inaccurate, perceptions about Obama, Obama has to date been unable to find an aggressive but non-combative voice.
And so, through hyperbole, misinformation, and tears, Hillary has displayed the one characteristic of which she can claim a clear advantage over Obama: image control. The Clinton camp has thus far accomplished a monumental feat in successfully presenting to the voting public a believable enough but completely dichotomous image of Hillary: the agent of change and the candidate of experience. The challenge now facing Obama requires a balancing act equally as monumental. Expose the inadequacies of Hillary's message while not seeming the bully and defend his own record while not seeming defensive. If he fails to accomplish this task in the next 14 days, he will undoubtedly lose the Democratic nomination.
In an age of classless politics, candidates cannot afford to rely exclusively on a positive message, passively permitting adversaries, who are by nature prone to hyperbole if not outright fabrication, to control the subject of discussion and, in the process, dismantle their qualifications for office. The danger of attempting this strategy can be seen in the few weeks since Iowa. Obama, seemingly committed to a strategy of staying positive, has seen his momentum (and nearly his lead in the delegate count) evaporate. In staying positive, Obama allowed Hillary to control the issues -- she focused the American voting public on the languishing economy diverting attention away from the Iraq War, a topic she seems endlessly defensive on as a result of her yay vote for the Iraq war -- and further permitted Hillary to create an objectively unfair perception of him as an inexperienced rookie incapable of the nation's highest office. The danger of this tact was never more apparent than in the previous debate in Las Vegas where a strictly positive Obama came across as passive and soft and seemed to cede points to the more aggressive and presidential Hillary on a regular basis.
But coming out too aggressive can have a down side too. In the days leading up to New Hampshire, Hillary capitalized on a perception that the men in the race had teamed up on her at the debate. Even coming out hard in one's own defense can be a huge political mistake. Obama went on the offensive last night at the South Carolina debate, fairly accusing Hillary and Bill of hyperbole and in certain cases, downright fabrication, regarding his record and experience. His attack edged toward the personal in certain spots when he drew particular attention to Hillary's lucrative position on the WalMart Board of Directors (part of her storied 35 years of experience) and to Bill's incessant and "troubling" loose use of the facts. While his comments drew some applause at the debate, the spin from the Hillary camp followed this morning in predictable fashion. Obama, in taking the offensive, is desperate and frustrated. Indeed, this is the danger. Americans hate kiss asses, but they hate save asses even more. Seeming mean, desperate or frustrated is tantamount to admitting the nomination is lost.
So what is an Obama to do? When he is on message, staying positive, espousing change and delivering inspiring rhetoric, he is perceived as passive, weak and lacking in substance. But in being aggressive or defending his record, Obama risks coming across as a bully, or worse, as defensive and desperate. This all leads us to Obama's biggest shortcoming so far, his inability to wrest the tenor and subject of these primary battles away from Hillary. Because Hillary has guided the issues masterfully up to this point and created resonating, albeit inaccurate, perceptions about Obama, Obama has to date been unable to find an aggressive but non-combative voice.
And so, through hyperbole, misinformation, and tears, Hillary has displayed the one characteristic of which she can claim a clear advantage over Obama: image control. The Clinton camp has thus far accomplished a monumental feat in successfully presenting to the voting public a believable enough but completely dichotomous image of Hillary: the agent of change and the candidate of experience. The challenge now facing Obama requires a balancing act equally as monumental. Expose the inadequacies of Hillary's message while not seeming the bully and defend his own record while not seeming defensive. If he fails to accomplish this task in the next 14 days, he will undoubtedly lose the Democratic nomination.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)