Anatomy of Spin Part 1 - The Distortion Out of CNBC
The story for a week coming out of Iowa - across the board among American "journalists" - has been the alleged "scream heard round the world. " More honest and substantive reporting, however, would hardly have noticed this brief sound as a man with voice cracking reached out above the din of a raucous room of supporters who looked more like they were celebrating a victory than the anticipated story line of disillusionment and despair those covering the event hoped to capture. So how did this story get chosen, framed, and shaped - as if this was news, as if this - not the fact that the Dean base was as energetic as ever despite their showing in Iowa - was the set of facts to be neutrally reported to those not present so as to give them an impression of events in distant parts of the country.
What exactly is the role of a journalist these days is a good question to begin asking - because the Dean Scream pseudo-story illustrates they have lost touch with the objectives of their profession. Rather than seeing their job as being to translate, while avoiding their personal bias, a set of events to an audience who is unable to be there to view it for themselves - "journalists" in America today seem to place themselves at the forefront rather than the material they are covering. Candidates for political office are supposed to speak to them or their cameras - not to the people on the ground. They are the important audience, not the people themselves. Those people on the ground are to be reduced to mere props in the creation of a sellable image. Candidates must pretend to speak to them - and instead speak to the journalists (now a blend between pundits and reporters) - in an effort to fool the people watching from their TV sets. The profession of "journalism" as it is now practiced in America not only expects politicians to lie, it demands it of them - and criticizes those who do not.
So let's take a look through the lens of each of those media outlets that claim to be in the profession of journalism - and see on what basis this "story" came about. Let's start with CNBC.
Prior to the now famous speech, CNBC was reporting that the greatest "disappointment" of Iowa was Dean - who they, through the constant reporting of polls (instead of reporting on each candidate's message on the ground), anointed the likely winner before a single vote was cast.
The scene was CNBC's Capital Report, co-hosted by Alan Murray and Gloria Borger. They had the benefit of being on when Dean addressed the crowd of over 3,500 volunteers in Des Moines Iowa. A crowd made up of the diversity of the American nation - young and old, black, white, Hispanic, and other, independent, Democrat, and Republican - all having traveled from distant parts of the nation to its center in Iowa.
Around 10 pm Monday night, they cut away from the studio to the Ballroom in Des Moines to cover Dean live. This was no concession speech, as many of the networks have tried to force it into, but instead a battle cry - like a General rallying his troops after the first battle of a long war.
"Not only are we going to New Hampshire, Tom Harkin. We're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico. We're going to California and Texas and New York. And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan! And then we're going to Washington, DC, to take back the White House! Yeah!
We will not give up."
Those were Dean's words - and CNBC listened further as Dean engaged the audience, "We will not give up in Arizona!" - "NO!" replied the audience, and the list followed once again. The audience was fired up when Dean paused for a moment and attempted to calm the crowd so as to humbly thank the Iowans who worked so hard for him - Tom Harkin, Jeanni Murray and others and then his union supporters.
At this point CNBC cut back to the studio. A hint of what was to come was given by Murray, who stated "Gloria, I think what we've just seen here is a remarkable demonstration of the Dean style, some people might say a demonstration of the style that got him into trouble in Iowa."
Murray paid more attention to the style and ignored both the substance and the context of the speech. Borger, however, clearly understood the point - the meaning and significance - of the speech. "I think he wants to show his supporters that instead of being defeated by this, Alan, he's energized to fight another day. He does have an awful lot of money in the bank, Alan, and he can go and fight in New Hampshire and beyond, and he's telling his supporters that's what he's going to do."
And indeed that was the story - if a neutral observer was to attend that event, and then attempt to convey what happened to another person without access to what happened, Borger's statement was the way to do it. In the context of what many would have viewed as a defeat or disappointment, Dean and his supporters were anything but downtrodden - they were energized. And they viewed this as merely one battle in a larger war - and were turning now toward that next battleground.
There was no mention of the jacket coming off (is that really significant anyway?); no mention of looking "presidential"; no mention of the sound that was referred to in this transcript merely as "Yeah." That was at 10 pm.
The coverage continued as the hosts brought in analysis from others in their profession - Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert - to analyze the speech and the days events. The discussions were attempts at analysis to explain the cause of the results and the implications for the next battles. Electability as an issue (an issue - and an image - created by the spin generated by these very media outlets as well as the attempts of opponents to try and gain an advantage through hype, rather than substance) was one discussion. Another was the significance of the war as an issue to Iowa voters - as they indicated through more polling data - now the main source of reporting for American "journalists," rather than actually speaking person-to-person, and going out on the actual streets - the ground, to do the work of real reporting.
The one thing curiously missing (given the focus since that evening) from this discussion - was the talk of the "Yeah" turned into scream. Not a word on this alleged "rant" which one watching the news five days later would seem to have been the defining moment of the speech, if one had not actually watched it, but relied on "journalists" to convey the events of the evening.
And this was the way it continued on CNBC throughout the morning coverage. The story, from the perspective of the Dean campaign, was merely the "disappointing" results of coming in third. Not a word on anything unsettling or inappropriate in his rallying speech to his supporters.
But all was changed by Tuesday evening. At 5 pm, CNBC had their economic show Kudlow & Cramer, with Republican "free market economist" weighing in with his alleged expertise as a political analyst. Reading through Kudlow and his partner's words on the transcript is like reading a Valley-Girl's diary, as each sentence is littered with "likes" - but Kudlow had to raise the issue of Dean in connection to his contentions on the health of America's economy. Although he seemed a bit confused as to who he was really referring to - was it John Dean, Nixon White House Counsel, or Howard Dean, former Governor and candidate for President.
"My view, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and even though, compared to John Dean, who--compared to Howard Dean, who was a nut case last night..." was Kudlow's comment. A passionate speech, in this economist's expert analysis, is a psychological flaw.
Mr. Cramer, the token leftie of the pair, had something more substantive to say about Dean. Cramer complained that Dean did not treat fellow pundit Matt Lauer with the respect he seemed to believe those in the new-journalism (American style) world deserve from men who exist in the world of actual governance. He compared Dean to Donald Trump, who made some kind of comment about Lauer being "snippy" with him - as Cramer so eloquently stated, "'cause I'm like higher." "What's he being snippy with Matt Lauer, nicest man in America? What is he, like, buying a super Matt Lauer at that Rich's? I mean, come on. ... This is--this is the head of the NBC "Today" show. You don't be snippy with him." We certainly can see how Mr. Cramer became a figure of clear expertise in rhetorical analysis. No doubt this pair is qualified to provide such a psychological profile of Howard Dean's speech - given their training in economics and their clearly articulate phraseology.
This is how they concluded their Dean segment:
KUDLOW: He was so nutty last night in that thing.
CRAMER: Next he's gonna be mean to Jay Leno. I don't like--come on.
KUDLOW: I just--I didn't get that at all.
CRAMER: Take a tranqui. [lizer]
So we see that the news portion of CNBC did not pick up on the so-called "scream" until after a pair of economic talk-show hosts decided to cast, like, judgment upon him. It was like, crazy, you know.
But CNBC did not force its audience to rely on these experts for their Dean description. A few hours later, at 8pm, CNBC introduced us to the views of its newest commentator - with even higher credentials for substantive political criticism and analysis. After all - who is more credible than a comedian?
That's right, at 8 pm, CNBC - still not reporting journalistically on the matter - brought on Dennis Miller, who in his discussion admitted he would be voting for and supporting George Bush to give us the non-partisan substantive analysis upon which the public was to decide what happened Monday night.
Miller, who will have his own show in CNBC next week, spoke with anchor John Siegenthaler as the medium merges journalism with comedy during prime time. Miller too seemed to have a hard time distinguishing between Watergate snitch John Dean and the evil Howard Dean - but what does it matter when you are speaking of two obvious traitors to Miller's cause.
Siegenthaler, the "journalist," set up the show for Miller's punch lines:
Dennis, I--I wanted to talk a bit about the Democrats out in Iowa. Howard made quite a speech last night. In fact, let me just show you a little bit of it.
Mr. DENNIS MILLER: All right.
Mr. HOWARD DEAN: If you had told us one year ago that we were going to come in third in Iowa, we would have given anything for that. And you know something--you know something, not only are we going into New Hampshire, Tom Harkin, we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico. And we're going to California and Texas and New York. And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then, we're going to Washington, DC, to take back the White House. Yeah!
Well - there we go - the night before, this was seen as rallying the troops by Gloria Borger. But what does the far more qualified Dennis Miller have to say on this - to correct any misconceptions the viewing public may have gotten from Borger's obvious cover-up for Dean's gaff?
Mr. MILLER: Well, you know, we used to play Name the States in the backseat of my car on long family vacations. It didn't mean we were ready to be president.
Ah yes, the "presidential" issue. Introduced for the first time in that news cycle on CBNC by Dennis Miller. According to CNBC political expert Miller, this was proof that Dean was not "presidential," unlike George Bush, Miller's self-admitted ideal president. Miller continued:
That--he blew the election right there. He was fine right up until the moment he said he got 18 percent. And indeed, I think if he had worked the just--we're going to work all 50 states till the end, they'll have to kick us out of the race, he might have hung in there. But that was an insane speech. Halfway through it, he got so far afield, I thought they were going to have to install an OnStar button in the middle of his forehead. And you know something? I don't think he has a chance now. I think, all of a sudden, you look at Kerry, you think, 'Yeah, the guy protected me in Vietnam. He seems sane. That's who the Democrats are going to run.'
I think Howard dean screwed the pooch last night, as they used to say at NASA. Around halfway through that speech, I remember thinking, 'Man, this is not quite an Ed Muskie Kenuckletter gaffe.' But this is big time. This is going to down in the annals.'
A little later Miller had the following to say about John, I mean Howard, Dean:
Mr. MILLER: What are you going to do? What am--I'm going to start lying about what I believe? I'm a 50-year-old man. It's a dangerous place. I look at Bush and Cheney. I look at Dean last night. And I think, 'For God's sake, I wouldn't play Charades with Dean much less have him be my president.'
And then:
Mr. MILLER: No, it's a little--it's not my style. But I--I do watch--I like watching other guys who gre--grasp for the Grail, not get it. And I'd rather stand on the outside and poke fun at guys like John Dean, who, up to this point, quite frankly in life he can lecture our president. But the only thing he's ever had to do as a governor of Vermont is come out once a year, pound a nail into a tree and hang a bucket off it. And he got turned out last night. It's over, Johnny. Come on CNBC, I need an Ed McMahon.
And so we come full circle back to Alan Murray's Capital Report on Tuesday night. The story is now that the Zogby poll numbers still have Dean in the lead in NH, but falling - and the main point reporter Brian Williams makes is that the late-night talk show hosts have yet to get a hold of it to shape "the national psyche and dialogue."
Williams reflects on - and reveals - the true source of the news in America today, and how its not journalists but comics who determine what the facts and their significance were. Referring to John Stewart, Jay Leno and David Letterman, Williams tells Murray: "and they're worth more, you'll forgive me, than Murray and Williams sometimes, especially in some demographics, when it becomes part of the national can, the national conversation."
Remember Murray who we first found the story in the "style" rather than the substance as the significance of the speech? Well, Borger's analysis of the true meaning and significance of the event didn't seem to weigh as heavily as the analysis of Larry Kudlow or Dennis Miller.
Dean's speech was reduced to a soundbite and disconnected from the words and the context it had actually existed in 24 hours before. As Murray asserted:
"Well, and we have seen over and over and over again on TV today that soundbite of Howard Dean angry at his speech. Do we have it loaded up? OK, we'll look at it in a minute, but that incredible anger, which a lot of people say is what hurt him in Iowa."
The "anger"! What anger is that? Well, we don't know, because there was never any actual reporting of "anger" in the speech. A speech in which Dean is smiling throughout - speaking to throngs of screaming and cheering supporters, in which he ignores the negativity of the story-line that was expected, and urges his troops on to the next battle in a passionate rallying-cry.
From CNBC we originally learned that Dean's speech was a rallying cry for his supporters on the evening in question from journalist Gloria Borger. But so as not to distort the picture viewers got of the event - the next day they called out their experts to re-adjust the perception of the viewing audience. Republican economist Kudlow clarified for the world that Dean "was a nut case" and Dennis Miller, PhD in hand, and admitting he was working for the election of Bush told us that Dean supporters were "maniacs," Dean "screwed the pooch, and Miller "wouldn't play Charades" with him.
This is how American's get their news - this is how America's public opinion is shaped ... and then reshaped. This is the new American journalism. Are you impressed?