Debate Week Tuesday

A Golden Opportunity for more Bad Journalism

A theme is emerging: Yesterday, I expressed skepticism about “mood of the people” accounts. Today, I have two more journo-quibbles: Pre-debate stories and “Veepstakes”—dreadful locution—stories.

First, let me say: I love debates. I think they’re important…and you can’t beat the drama. In fact, I think they’re crucial: The presidency is our most intimate office and this is the most direct way to evaluate who we want in our living rooms for the next four years, delivering the bad news—and the good.

Consequently, I find debate naysayers foolish or snooty or prissy. These are not real debates? Oh please—debate coaches, get a life. They are more performative than substantive? You betcha—but the substance of a presidency is less than predictable in advance; the presence and decency of the candidates are among the few things we can make a reasonable judgment about. These are showbiz shoutathons? Yeah, sometimes. But so what? I want to see how these presumptive leaders react under pressure, especially when attacked.

But the debates often unleash, in advance, a sludge tide of the very worst journalism. In fact, predictive journalism isn’t generally a good idea. We’re pretty good at describing what happened afterwards; in advance, not so much. Most of these pieces are obvious. I will not be shocked if Biden brings up abortion and Trump brings up inflation. I will be surprised if Trump shows restraint and Biden doesn’t garble some words. Too often journalists turn to political consultants—unemployed ones—and ask, “What does Candidate X have to do?” The answer is inevitably a lesssuccinct variation on the 3x5 card Al Gore’s mother gave him before his first presidential debate in 1988: Smile. Relax. Attack.

Having said all that, there are three pre-debate pieces this week that are worth reading. The first is a New York Post editorial, which is pretty obvious but notable because it sounds like it comes straight from Murdoch Campaign Headquarters. Rupert considers Trump a clown. He would have preferred another candidate—and tried hard to promote the hapless DeSantis. But his Fox audience loves the guy, so he’s stuck with him—as my podcast partner John Ellis always says: Fox follows its audience, not vice versa. So the Post’s advice: Don’t get crazy. Stay calm and tough. Smile. Relax. Attack. Not a surprise.

Second, Hillary Clinton wrote an interesting op-ed for the Times today about her debate experiences. She begins with classic Hillary eat-your-peas warning:

I love theater about politics. But not the other way around. Too often we approach pivotal moments like this week’s debate between President Biden and Donald Trump like drama critics. We’re picking a president, not the best actor.

Actually, these days, the President has to be best actor in one way or another. And has been in every presidential debate I’ve watched—that means, all of them—since 1960. But then she makes a very smart point about what makes a winner:

[Pay] attention to how the candidates talk about people, not just policies. In my third debate with Mr. Trump, he promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. I responded that this would have real consequences for real women. Mr. Trump had already said women should be punished for getting abortions….On Thursday, Mr. Trump will most likely say he wants to leave abortion to the states. He hopes that sounds moderate. But it really means he’s endorsing the most extreme abortion bans already imposed by many states and all the extreme restrictions to come. Mr. Trump should have to answer for the 12-year-old girl in Mississippi who was raped and then forced to carry a child to term.

Finally, there’s Frank Luntz, who knows a thing or two about debates…and, especially, about how people respond to them:

It still amazes me that minuscule moments, verbal miscues and misremembering little details can matter so much in the spin room and to partisan pundits afterward. Yet those things often have little to no discernible impact on the opinions of many people watching at home…

The key moments that will have the greatest impact on the remaining undecided voters are those in which the candidates attack each other in defining ways or undermine the political case that each wants to present to Americans. Viewers will quickly decide whether the accusations are fair and the responses effective…

And sometimes it’s a feeling rather than a specific moment that matters. The best examples are John Kerry in the 2004 debates and John McCain in the 2008 debates: Both men were good public servants with impressive personal narratives, and neither said anything wrong in their debates. But neither did they say anything especially or memorably right. Many voters were left feeling unmoved and therefore unaffected.

Frank Luntz comes out for substance! Well, with a caveat: it has to be entertaining substance, delivered by someone who can pass for a palpable human being. This lesson was brought home in 2000, when Al Gore ignored his mother’s advice and was dour and pompous in his flagrant substantiality, sighing audibly at George W. Bush’s relatively simple formulations. Bush, the more palpable human being, won. In this week’s Assisted Living debate, we will have two seriously compromised oldsters trying to get you to like them—or, in Trump’s case, to be entertained by him. I have no idea how this will turn out. And, believe me, neither do any of the other chin-pullers who are pre-analyzing the debate. But Hillary and Luntz make good points.

Another loathed form of political journalism, at least by me, is the veepstakes sweepstakes. I always considered it a major failure of imagination if I wrote a column speculating who the vice presidential pick might be: Wasn’t there something actual to write about that week? It’s gotten worse in recent years…and even worse this year, since Trump is very much aware that this is just another episode of The Apprentice, with “You’re hired!” as the tagline. Let me warn you: The pieces in which the various candidates are ranked are fun to read, but entirely useless. And very often stories like Doug Burgum is on the rise! are disinformatia planted by the campaign. And more than once in the past—Dan Quayle in 1988, Al Gore in 1992 come to mind—the “winner” hasn’t been speculated upon at all. Deep down, most politicians hate journalists. They love to make us look stupid which, sadly, isn’t very hard.

The veep stories will restart, hot and heavy, after the debate and I will hazard one prediction: If Trump thinks he lost the debate, he’ll try to change the story by announcing his VP pick as quickly as possible. That’s as far out on a limb I’ll go.

Assange

Julian Assange should spend the rest of his life in jail and here’s why: Amidst the State Department cables leaked by him and Chelsea Manning—who also should be in jail for life—in 2010 were the names of dozens of human rights activists who were cooperating with the U.S. State Department. I know of one case personally, but there were plenty of others. As a result, people were tossed in jail across the globe; some fled their home countries, leaving their families behind and vulnerable; some disappeared, murdered perhaps. These people were heroes. Assange isn’t. He’s a cowardly, anti-American villain.

I could be wrong but, to my knowledge, no major media institution has investigated this situation. Someone should. Where has Amnesty International been in all this?

Please…

Think about subscribing, free or, better still, paid…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/06/25/julian-assange-reaction-plea-deal-wikileaks/