Jonathan Weisman's failure to understand history
September 06, 2008 12:16 pm ET by Jamison Foser
During an online discussion yesterday, Washington Post congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman downplayed the significance of John McCain voting with George Bush 90 percent of the time. As Media Matters explained, Weisman's comments demonstrated an apparent lack of understanding how that statistic was determined.
But that wasn't the only mistake Weisman made during the discussion. Here's how he responded to a comment about the media's role in the 2000 election:
2000 Debates: Are actually one of the most interesting moments for media criticism. Following the debates the media and the public generally believed Gore had trampled Bush. But the next morning GOP operatives started pushing around the "Sighs" and other purported Gore gaffes and that became the new reality. These guys haven't been in power for 26 of the last 28 years because they don't know how to alter reality.
Jonathan Weisman: I disagree. I was at those debates, and when Al Gore started badgering Bush on his position on "Dingell-Ganske," I knew all hope was lost. That was a reference, by the way, to the Patients Bill of Rights, not that 99 percent of Americans had a clue what he was talking about.
Weisman's response has several flaws:
First, Weisman can disagree all he wants, but the fact is that the commenter was correct: the instant polls taken immediately after the first debate in 2000 found that viewers thought Gore won them, as Bob Somerby explained. It was only after the media worked themselves into a nit-picking frenzy about Gore's supposed sighs - sighs that hadn't bothered real-time viewers -- that opinion shifted. Disagreeing with that is disagreeing with objective reality.
Second, The commenter mentioned the media's fixation on Gore's "sighs"; Weisman responded by pointing to Gore's references to "Dingell-Ganske." Problem is, the sighs came in the first debate; the references to the Patients Bill of Rights came in the last debate. It should be obvious that something that happened during the last debate can't explain away the press's effect on public opinion immediately following the first debate.
Third, It wasn't "Dingell-Ganske." It was Dingell-Norwood.
Finally, Weisman's snide comment about Gore "badgering" Bush about Dingell-Norwood (not Ganske) is wrong in a variety of ways.
To start with: If 99 percent of the viewing audience didn't know what Gore was talking about when he mentioned Dingell-Norwood, they must not have been paying much attention. Gore didn't, as Weisman suggests, simply refer to "Dingell-Norwood" and expect the audience to know what he was talking about. He explained what it was. Repeatedly.
The very first time Gore said the words "Dingell-Norwood," it came at the end of an answer - an answer that began with Gore using the phrase "Patients Bill of Rights." He then explained the need for it, and then, at the end, he referred to it as "Dingell-Norwood." And this was in response to the very first question. If the audience - or, to be more precise, Jonathan Weisman - didn't understand what Gore was talking about when he referred to the bill as "Dingell-Norwood," it simply means they hadn't been paying attention at all.
Why did Gore refer to it as Dingell-Norwood?
This is actually really simple: George W. Bush was running around also claiming to support a "Patients Bill of Rights." By invoking a specific piece of bipartisan legislation - the bill sponsored by Representatives Dingell and Norwood - that Bush did not support, Gore was trying to prevent Bush from pretending there was no difference between the two candidates.
And that's just what Bush did in his response to Gore. Here's the end of Gore's answer: "I support a strong national patient's bill of rights. It is actually a disagreement between us, a national law that is pending on this, the Dingle-Norwood bill, a bipartisan bill, is one that I support and that the governor does not."
And here's how Bush responded: "Actually, Mr. Vice President, it's not true. I do support a national patient's bill of rights."
After Bush was finished, moderator Jim Lehrer said to Gore: "would you agree that you two agree on a national patient's bill of rights?"
That's why Gore made clear that he was talking about Dingell-Norwood: Bush was trying to pretend the two candidates agreed on a patients bill of rights, and the media was going along with that nonsense - in this case, via debate moderator Jim Lehrer who explicitly (and falsely) took Bush's side.
So Gore had to respond to Lehrer: "Absolutely not. I referred to the Dingell-Norwood bill. It is the bipartisan bill that is now pending in the Congress. The HMOs and the insurance companies support the other bill that's pending, the one that the Republican majority has put forward. ... I specifically would like to know whether Governor Bush will support the Dingle-Norwood bill, which is the main one pending."
Here's what had happened at this point in the exchange: Gore had explained that he supported a specific piece of patients' rights legislation - Dingell-Norwood. Bush had responded broadly, saying he supported a patients rights bill - but not saying which one. Lehrer had then asserted that the candidates agreed on the matter, leading Gore to point out that they did not - that Bush had not yet said whether he supported specific legislation. And Gore then asked Bush directly whether he supported that legislation.
So what did Jim Lehrer do? He told Bush "Governor Bush, you may answer that if you'd like."
After Bush had falsely suggested that the two candidates agreed on the matter, Gore asked a simple question, the answer to which would make clear whether they really did. And Jim Lehrer told Bush he could answer - if he wanted to. That's nothing short of malpractice by Lehrer. Incidentally, Jim Lehrer will moderate the first of this year's presidential debates in three weeks.
Bush took the out Lehrer gave him, and offered yet another vague response that didn't answer the basic question of whether he supported the specific legislation at hand. So Gore asked him again.
That's the "badgering" Weisman describes: Moderator Jim Lehrer refused to do his job; instead, he falsely helped Bush try to fool viewers into thinking the two candidates agreed. So Gore asked Bush a simple and direct question - a simple and direct question that Bush didn't answer. So Gore asked it again.
And that's why Gore referred to the bill as "Dingell-Norwood" -- because Bush (and Lehrer) were pretending that supporting any bill was the same thing as supporting the bill.
The media's failure in all this should be obvious: Lehrer's job was to clarify, not muddy the waters - a job he simply refused to do, preferring to help Bush avoid getting pinned down on his position on one of the central issues of the campaign. Any reasonably thoughtful person would probably assume that media coverage of that exchange would focus on Bush's refusal to say one way or another whether he supported the bill. Instead, as Weisman's comments demonstrate, they mocked Gore for wanting to know whether Bush supported it.
So, back to Weisman.
In Jonathan Weisman's telling, Gore "badgered" Bush. The transcript makes clear that he did not; that the noteworthy part of the exchange is Bush's refusal to tell the American people where he stood on a key issue - and Jim Lehrer's jaw-droppingly incompetent performance.
In Jonathan Weisman's telling, viewers had no idea what Gore meant when he said "Dingell-Ganske." In reality, Gore had referred to "Dingell-Norwood," and had explained quite clearly what that was.
And in Jonathan Weisman's telling, this is why people thought Gore did poorly in the debates - even though this exchange came in the last debate, after the media narrative about Gore's poor performances had already taken hold.
Now, here's why this matters; why this is more than historical trivia. Jonathan Weisman covers politics for one of the nation's most influential newspapers. He covers, among other things, the current presidential campaign. And apparently has no idea - none at all -- how the media affected the 2000 presidential campaign. If he doesn't understand what his profession did wrong then, how is he to avoid making the same mistakes this time? This is a point Bob Somerby makes regularly, and he's right: until people understand what happened in 2000, there's no reason to think it will stop happening.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
really? Well anecdote != data, but I can tell you that I remember quite well watching that debate, Gore's sighs were very audible, and I thought he was fucking nuts for doing it... even if George W. Bush really is exasperatingly dense. I could not have thought of a better way to reinforce the portrait Republicans were trying to paint of Gore as a condescending egghead.
Really Renato, you remember hearing those sighs during the debate and you were bothered at the time? Well that puts you in the select company of some very sensitive viewers.
Bob Somerby writes about this at length elsewhere. (My edits are in brackets.)
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h060201_1.shtml
That's funny, I listed to that debate on the radio, and I do not recall a single "audible" sigh. I do remember Gore pretty much kicking Bush's a$$, which was the general impression, especially among radio listeners.
Gore's big mistake was letting the media define his reality. Seems pretty stupid in retrospect, seeing that the media did not want him to win.
Why pretend that Weisman makes mistakes--or that the corporate media need to improve--when it is clear that their actions are very purposeful--not mistakes at all. Weisman and the Post have an agenda which they pursue quite relentlessly, which is to support Republicans and afflict Democrats.
I see nothing to be gained by pretending that Weisman's words and actions are his own. It doesn't matter what McDonald's you go to, you get the same lousy food. Not because the individual fry cooks aren't trying to do better, but because it is corporate policy. Similarly, Weisman supports skewed versions of history not because of his own failings, but because that is corporate policy.
You point out that Weisman holds an influential position at an influetnial paper. Of course, were he to actually start reporting the truth, it is likely that he would no longer hold that postion. People in the media are not tenured.
So please stop going along with the pretense that reporting falsehold are simply mistakes.
Thank you for this reminder of Jim Lehrers '
"After Bush had falsely suggested that the two candidates agreed on the matter, Gore asked a simple question, the answer to which would make clear whether they really did. And Jim Lehrer told Bush he could answer - if he wanted to. That's nothing short of malpractice by Lehrer. Incidentally, Jim Lehrer will moderate the first of this year's presidential debates in three weeks."
I haven't watched the Newshour since that debate and i was a fan of the Newshour back when it was a half hour local dC program in the late seventies.
In a poll on Daily Kos a large majority were happy to see Jim Lehrer as an upcoming moderator.
Progressives and democrats need to be reminded that we have no friends in the media and that Lehrer is the worst kind of newsperson as he purports to be unbiased.
Well written Jamo!
Republican who can't handle the media use the "they are picking on me!" gambit all the time. And I had it confirmed for me when I heard Diane Sawyer say something about it after an interview with George W. Bush.I think it was the "Bush wearing pants that were too short for him" interview.
She asked Bush a tough question. This tough question was not answered. She asked again. Again it wasn't answered. She didn't ask a third time. She explained that the media (Diane) doesn't like to ask a question more than twice because the sympathy of the audience moves from the person doing the questioning (the media) to the person being questioned!
This was an AMAZING revelation that I think that I knew at some intutitive level, but I had never heard it spoken directly by a major media player. So all the president has to do is dodge the question twice and he is safe. The media is so sensative to being attacked later as "badgering the witness" that they back off.
The other thing that we don't see is the aftermath of an interview where the person DOESN'T follow the "rules". I'm sure that Eric can remind us of what happened to the Irish reporter who asked tough questions and the ABC reporter who was kicked off of Cheney's plane.
The reason that the Republicans always like to position themselves as the Underdog being picked on by the evil media is that they have found one group of people that the public seems to like LESS than politicians. That is yet another reason that I like to SUPPORT good journalism. The public needs to understand that these techniques used by the politicians are based on the concerns of the media both during press conferences and after the press conferences is over.
The portion of the third Gore-Bush debate that is recounted here, puts me to mind again, of how foolishly constrained these debates are: Mr. Gore asks Bush a direct question, about a particular piece of legislation that is at the heart of the topic of the debate at that point (legislation that gives patients the right not to suffer their health insurance provider from making medical decisions that rightly belong to the patient, and the patient's doctor), and in the moronic constraints of these so-called debates, Bush doesn't have to answer... as a matter of fact, at least according to the present rules of these "debates", Mr. Gore not only would have his question go unanswered, but he'd be called for a foul: "Mr. Gore, may I remind you that according to the stupid rules of these debates, you are not allowed to ask questions of, or even directly address, the other candidate... Foul on Gore... Mr. Bush, you may go to the line and shoot two free throws."
I think also that's why the hack (weisman) referred to Mr. Gore asking Mr. Bush a direct question (gasp!) during the debate, as "badgering" him... what a joke these so-called debates have become... one side of the political spectrum (Republicans) are so frightened and averse to any direct questioning or examination (and can you blame them), they insist such questioning is foul and "badgering", and that direct questions are to be (as part of the written and agreed upon rules of the "debate") prohibited.
And of course, the other side of the political spectrum, who chronically show all of the symptoms of being brain dead, agree to such stupid rules: rendering these so-called debates into nothing but (in the words of a famous third party gadfly and political activist extraordinaire) "parallel press conferences"
Democratic candidates for the Presidency, hear me now (I'm sure there is at least one of you out there still): "Do not agree to such a stupid rule of debate, as is the anti-debate rule that the candidates can not ask one another direct questions, nor even speak to one another directly during the debate... and in setting the public ground for such a thing as direct questions and answers (gasp!) between the candidates, talk about it publicly... ridicule the opposition for their fear... publicly refer to their refusal to allow questions and answers as being like "taking the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination"... and if the stupid anti-debate rule against direct questions between the candidates is in place anyway, then break it! No one other than the Republican candidate is served by such an idiotic rule anyway... the American People are certainly not served by it... so break that stupid rule, and speak directly to your opponent... the American People would love it, because they love true debate... they even love arguments!"
The real holy grail would be a single debate, anywhere at any time of any type, that isn't poisoned by a Big Media Stooge. But that'll never happen in a billion years.
The media complains that there are too many debates. Obviously there aren't, because we still don't get the tiniest sliver of variety in the ones we have.
The main thing that the Gore-Bush debates forever puts me in mind of, is the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.
That happened the day after the second of the three debates (October 12, 2000), and cast a pall and a funk not only over the third debate (I recall), but over the balance of the remaining campaign.
I truly believe it had a significant effect on the electorate's mood, and on not just the third debate to come, but also the two that had already taken place (especially the second debate, which was only the night before the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole).
In the Middle East, and just before a Presidential election (and during the all-important Presidential debates), "terrorists", of the variety called "al qaeda", attack a U.S. Navy ship by way of suicide small boat bomber... thereby having an effect on an American Presidential election (I say), that attack occuring little more than three weeks before the election...
I know it is not lost on you at this late date, that "terrorism" is largely a political tool, or more accurately, a political weapon.
The same website which MMFA links to above in the item, to give you a transcript of the third Gore-Bush debate, has also a transcript of the second Presidential debate, on October 11, 2000... here is an only slightly abridged transcript of the opening of that debate (also moderated by Mr. Lehrer), with the very first thing said by the candidate who spoke first, Mr. Bush...
MODERATOR (Lehrer): "Let's welcome the candidates, Governor Bush and Vice President Gore. Good evening, from Wake Chapel at Wake Forest University at Winston-Salem, North Carolina. ...Governor Bush, the first question goes to you. One of you is about to be elected the leader of the single-most powerful nation in the world, economically, financially, militarily, diplomatically, you name it. Have you formed any guiding principles for exercising this enormous power?"
BUSH: "I have, I have. First question is what's in the best interests of the United States? What's in the best interests of our people? When it comes to foreign policy that will be my guiding question. Is it in our nation's interests? Peace in the Middle East is in our nation's interests."
The next day, October 12, 2000, something that goes by a name we've since had drilled into our heads as "al qaeda", bombed the U.S.S. Cole in a Yemeni port (Yemen is on the southern border of saudi arabia: you know them, the saudis... George W. Bush's "good friends" and business partners).
Seventeen U.S. Sailors were killed.
It cast a pall and a funk on the Presidential campaign at that point (just three weeks before the election)... it had an effect (I say) on the electorate, and on the election.
It was a "terrorist" attack that had a political effect... that's what "terrorism" is and what it does: it's a political tool or weapon...
...and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole happened right in the saudis backyard, just south of their border, the day after the second Presidential debate: October 12, 2000.
That's what I will forever remember about the Bush-Gore debates.