In his weekly “Stories I’d like to see” column, journalist and entrepreneur Steven Brill spotlights topics that, in his opinion, have received insufficient media attention. This article was originally published on Reuters.com.
1. The remaining debates: Tell us the rules
Two weeks ago there was an interesting story in the Huffington Post about how the rules set by the Commission on Presidential Debates are likely to be highly detailed, down to the permissible lighting and camera shots, how the moderators are supposed to ensure a balance in each candidate’s allotted time during any back-and-forth, and even a provision for the screening of notepaper the combatants could bring to the podium (to make sure it was blank).
The HuffPo report drew on a leaked 31-page contract the commission executed with the campaigns of President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry in 2004, and noted that “eighteen good-governance and media watchdog groups” have now demanded that this year’s contract be publicly disclosed.
But why is the press waiting for the commission and the campaigns to disclose what they obviously want to keep under wraps? Why hasn’t some reporter pried loose the text or at least the highlights of the 2012 contract? There must be a half-dozen or more operatives in each camp, plus at least as many debate commission officials, who know.
With the controversy over moderator Jim Lehrer’s allegedly too-laid-back performance in the first Obama-Romney debate, the actual rules seem more relevant now than ever. This is especially true because the second presidential debate, on October 16, has a town hall format. That means that beyond the moderator’s stipulated role, there are all kinds of issues related to the choice of the audience, the nature and selection of the questions they can ask, and what kind of follow-up is allowed from the citizen-questioners or the moderator. Any of these dynamics could be pivotal, which is why the 2004 contract included a whole series of special clauses governing only that town hall format.
These are the election’s most important events. Can’t one of the hundreds of reporters covering campaign 2012 find out what rules have been negotiated and what the moderator is supposed to do if they are violated?
2. Why do wounded vets need charity?
Lately I’ve been seeing lots of compelling television ads soliciting contributions for Wounded Warrior Project, Inc, a Jacksonville, FL-based nonprofit that, according to the ads and its mission statement, supplies financial aid and rehabilitative services to “honor and empower wounded warriors.”
No, this is not a suggestion for a story investigating whether the charity is a rip-off. Yes, the annual Form 990 that this and other charitable organizations file with the IRS reveals that Wounded Warrior’s top executive, Steven Nardizzi, made $341,000 in the fiscal year ending September 2011, and seven other officials made in excess of $160,000 each. And the nonprofit actually recorded an operating income of $16 million on $74 million in revenues, including donations - or 22 percent. But these salaries seem appropriate for an organization of this scope, and this kind of surplus is normal for a growing non-profit. Moreover, Wounded Warrior has attracted a blue-ribbon board of directors that includes decorated veterans of all ranks and former Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi, who is unpaid.
Rather, for me the very existence of the organization and its activities raise a more fundamental question: How did it come to be that the people who have so selflessly served our country have to rely on private charity for the kinds of rehabilitation and social work services that Wounded Warrior provides? Indeed, as I was watching one of its commercials pitching for donations to help the thousands of veterans who have been blinded or paralyzed or who must learn how to live in wheelchairs or with prosthetic devices, I imagined that sitting next to me was someone from another country. How embarrassed would I be explaining that our government doesn’t provide all of these services in full - and, therefore, that our veterans had to form an organization to pass a tin cup around?
The comments above on the debate rules are sound.
There should be no note-taking in the debates. It is one of the factors that killed Obama's performance in the first debate.
It is in Romney's best interests to have strong competition. He walked all over Obama, mostly because of the President's ineptitude, but partially because of what can only be called Lehrer's foolishness.
For example, when Romney dramatically questioned the "loopholes" for companies moving overseas, Lehrer stopped Obama from replying, probably his most bone-headed move among many.
American democracy is immature and easily manipulated. The media enjoy a good sleep. The debates are essentially fixed to suit the two major parties.
The media should demand a small board of interviewers, separate from the moderator and his staff, so as to ask some key questions during the debates.
The first debate was discursive to the point that it seemed far too long, and made for an inelegant transcript. A well-organized debate with sharp interviewing as well could easily run two productive hours.
Being placid, on the part of the President or the media, will cause a lot of trouble.
As the issues arise, they have to be focused. In trying to determine how The Boston Globe and The NYT could work together to profile education in Boston and New York as an election issue, I discovered that The Globe does not have a Public Editor.
Look, if all newspapers owned by the Times company can't meet the same high standards in this area, The NYT's Public Editor should resign. The current practice is an incoherent disgrace.
What I want to detail is the amazing fact that the President of the United States has such a weakness in working memory that he has to scribble notes. Reporters are too lazy even to read the 20-page introduction to working memory experiments in Mark Ashcraft's "Cognition."
They are too lazy to investigate bizarre practices in IB English, where students are encouraged to write in the present and scribble out essays according to American school rhetoric.
The first rule for the Presidential Debates should be: "No Notes Period." Stand or fall based on your brain power. If you can't hack it, surrender and become a Harvard professor.
#1 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 12:29 PM
"Wounded Warrior spent $57.7 million in fiscal 2011, according to its IRS report. The Defense Department spends about $350 billion a year on all private contractors. That produces one of the most prosperous sectors of the private economy, yielding, for example, much of the $3.8 billion in operating income enjoyed last year by Lockheed Martin, the nation’s largest defense contractor.
"If those contractors kicked in, say, five one-hundredths of 1 percent of what they get from the Pentagon - a nickel for every hundred dollars - the Wounded Warrior budget would be quadrupled. Why not ask some of the defense contractor CEOs if they’d be willing to do that?"
Better yet, why not end the freakin' wars, occupations, and corporate welfare? That would save at least a trillion in taxpayer-dollars, untold millions in rehab, and untold thousands of lives, per year. It would benefit everyone except the "private" contractors and their fascist-cronies in govt.
Q: Why is the MSM solution always one where more money is taken from one group and given to another and, by default, more power is given to politicians and bureaucrats? The most equitable, economical, effective solutions are the ones where things get undone. Remove this cause of death, sickness, and poverty and you get that increase of lifespan, well-being, and prosperity. Common sense.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 12:31 PM
And here are the deeper questions on the election debates:
Why do the DEMs and REPs still control the rules in the first place? Why are they still able to shut out debate by banning Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Socialist, and such? Should the DEMs and REPs who control these things be sued under antitrust laws? Two-party rule is one true example of actual anti-competitive behavior.
Truly non-partisan, conscientious, sharp-thinking journalists would ask those questions.
#3 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 12:45 PM
Dan A., This is machine posting. You ignored the subjects of the post. Thanks. Clayton.
#4 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 12:46 PM
@ Clayton "The Machine" Burns: Yes, I took the conversation to an uncomfortably anti-partisan level. Now, if you can just show me how I was off-topic...
#5 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 12:57 PM
There should be regular real-name debates at CJR involving writers for the site and readers.
If a school girl can risk her life by using her real name, I think that the shy posters at CJR can reveal their names.
I enjoy lucid comment and an exchange of ideas.
#6 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 01:32 PM
Far as I know, there are no fake screen-names on this thread. But I'm with you when it comes to exchanging ideas.
#7 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 02:22 PM
I agree with you Clayton: machine posting. I can write all of his posts for him. Less government. Government mainly messing things up. No matter what the subject of the column is. And see how few words that took me. I can also write his answer to me: No, you didn't refute me, you only attacked me. I've seen that one more than once.
As to screennames, sorry, disagree. What's a Clayton Burns? How do I know which Clayton Burns this is? How do I know if you're Clayton Burns at all? And should I even care? No disrepect, I only mean to say that idea is better in theory than it is in practice. The only real way to deal with the issue is quality of argument. It doesn't matter so much as what is said, but what concrete examples people site. What evidence they use, not what sweeping generalizations they spout.
As to Dan A. not being a screen-name. Maybe, but Burns meant accurate disclosure. Are you Dan Abbott? Dan Ashkenazy? Dan Abramowitz? Dan Austin, Dan August? No wait, that was a Burt Reynolds character. Dan Arachnid? Dan Aguirre? Dan Ashimoto? And again, why should I care? Lol.
As to the RNC/DNC monopoly: I agree with the problem. But they're are not monopolies, since they are acting in opposition in competition for the seat. What you mean is they are acting as a trust, or more correctly, as a combine. The answer to your question, though, is that no court in the land would hear such a case because the candidates themselves make the choice. They are under the duress of their party certainly, but no court would conclude anti-trust unless there was very concrete evidence that the candidates wanted to debate others and were prevented, the pressures of their parties are irrelevant. Tomorrow, the President or the Governor could pop on, say, Fox and Friends with the Green Party candidate and go at it. They don't because they don't want to. They have the right to choose who they debate. Another overly simplistic solution. Actually, it would take new laws and significant government intervention to change that and I suspect you would find that highly distasteful.
If you're really concerned about that, might I suggest you become involved in the effort to repeal many of the roadblocks the RNC/DNC have helped place to prevent third parties getting on the ballots in practically all the states, rather than just post complaints here.
As to the issue at hand - lest we forget, lol - I'm afraid I see it differently, Mr. Chitturn. I have never been a fan of these artifically structured debates. I consider them an exercise in debate technique rather than substance. But, specifically, I believe that Mr Lehrer failed because the lauded 2 minute limitation is ridiculous. I would use something like 5, which most candidates wouldn't fill up and would be to their detriment if they did. IMHO, any politician that boils down the details of how to deal with some of our complex problems into 2 minutes is a liar, a genius, or both. But I suspect it is usually list item number 1.
In short, Jim Lehrer failed because he tried to enforce a foolishly artificial and and hindering standard that rarely works and anybody whose been following the campaign should have known it wouldn't work on these 2. Too-laid back? What was he supposed to say, "shut up Mr. President, shut up Governor"? Or was he supposed to repeatedly sound a buzzer like they did on "Whose Line Is It Anyway"? And no, I don't want to hear him constantly interrupt with, "your time is up" until the candidate capitulates. Even when they do get that to work, that condensation is almost always to the detriment of the people. Contract disclosure? Give them enough time to wind themselves down and it becomes irrelevant. If time isn't equal then, it's because one decided to say less than the other.
#8 Posted by mediaman13, CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 03:21 PM
Mediaman, I have no problem with honest criticism, but at least try to dispute the things I actually say. And don't be so butt-hurt after someone bites you back for your fallacy-laden character attack. (-:{
On the election-debate topic, I agree that an antitrust lawsuit won't be successful. So long as the federal govt is the arbiter of the limits to its own power, the chances of its limiting or punishing itself are almost none. My point is that the media should ask those kinds of questions, instead of the surface-level questions that accept the status-quo as inevitable.
And I too disagree with Clayton on the name thing. This is my real first name and last initial, and it's the extent of anyone's business at this time. (Notice I didn't attack Clayton for implying I use a fake name. I give everyone at least one chance unless they're being vicious.)
And yes, govt intervention is usually the cause (whether indirect) of the issues raised on this site.
#9 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 05:28 PM
Dan, if you have no problem with honest criticism, why don't you try some on Mr. Chitturn for a change, rather than your standard unsubstantiated, cookie-cutter, sniffing down your nose pronouncements. And yes, phrasing it like that is certainly insulting, it's meant to be. Just like you insinuating that every journalist that you disagree with is (non) "partisan", (un) conscietious, dull -"thinking" and "lazy", which you used another of Mr. Chitturn's columns. A truly staggering evidence based pronouncement. lol. Matched only by your personal attack on Mr. Burns, calling him "Clayton the Machine Burns" . Now there's an evidence based refutation. Thank you for giving Mr. Machine Burns "at least one chance". You are too funny!
One of the many things that seem to be over your head, Dan, is that these posts aren't really meant for you. There meant to hold you up to the mockery that you so "dilligently" earned for the benefit of the few readers who can't see through your one size fits all pronouncements at first glance. Not to mention your pot calling the kettle black attempts to deflect attention from your total lack of evidence by always claiming personal attack. You should ask Mr. Chitturn about personal attacks. He get's to see them practically every time your name appears on a post.
You're the only one who's "butt-hurt" here, Dan. I posted in response to many of your posts to Mr. Chitturn, because, frankly, it's d*mn fun to hoist you and those like you on your own petard, and to allow the folks to compare my often example/evidence laden posts to your evidence devoid posts. As to your teeth, well maybe you'd better put them in, because we have yet to see you expose anyone of my - or anyone else's - fallacies. Or even make a relevant try.
For another example, I did dispute the things you actually said. Maybe you should read your own posts more carefully. You said you weren't using a fake sceen name. That only indicates that you didn't understand what Burns was saying. When I gave that list of potential names for you, I wasn' t engaging in a "personal attack". That's your machine answer to all disputes, just like your anti-government mantra is your answer to all problems. I was actually pointing out that by Burns' standards your Dan A. might as well be a phony screen name since it doesn't concretely identify you to him.
My point was that full disclosure by using your actual given name is pointless, since (and it's shame I have to repeat this) it's pointless unless the person is prominent in the national debate, not an ordinary citizen like you or I, or Dr. Burns. My point was, who is Clayton Burns that having his name on the post actually enhances his arguments? He has posted elsewhere that he's a Ph. D from Vancouver, but a simple search doesn' t reveal any clues as to why that title should elevate his opinion any over any other posters. I don't want to know your name, Dan, I wouldn't do me any more good than your knowing would do you.
As to the debate monopoly, you missed it again. You imply that no action to open up the debates would be effective because the government would simply decide in it's own favor. Which is completely and sadly predictable on your part. I said that it would be pointless because, although it's unethical, it's not illegal. Your vision of correcting such a problem is just a pipe-dream, even if some independant authority were to decide the case.
I would point one other thing out to the impartial reader. Please compare this:
"I agree with you Clayton: machine posting. I can write all of his posts for him. Less government. Government mainly messing things up." and a later sentece I predicted Dan would say, "No, you didn't refute me, you only attacked me."
to the first and last paragraphs of the post by Dan A. directly above.
As Clayton Burns aptly said: "machine posting".
#10 Posted by mediaman13, CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 06:58 PM
Just a quick couple of notes..
1. Chitturn should be Chittum. Fuzzy fonts can make the 'RN' look like an 'M'. Honest mistake.
2. Poor Steven Brill is feeling left out of his own column. Look. He has a sad.
(:'(
Other than that, carry on.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 07:38 PM
You are, of course, right on both counts, Thimbles. I stand corrected and apologize to Mr. Brill. Thank you. All I can say in my defense is that predictable actions often engender predicable responses.
#12 Posted by mediaman13, CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 08:34 PM
Some folks have rather interesting ways of carrying on a "debate" when the only real disagreement is on the role of govt. Hmm. Oh well.
-- Mediaman accuses me of personally attacking Ryan Chittum "practically every time" I comment on Ryan's column. Mediaman does not prove this. But that's okay, because Mediaman has absolutely no explaining to do for himself:
Another funny article posted on the CJR website. ... You can't seriously consider that ... to be a short term jobs plan, can you? ... The funniest thing about your article is ... I'm not surprised, but then I'm only an unemployed former part-time journalist, not a "journalist" prestigious enough to blog on CJR. You know as well as I do ... and it's time for you in main stream journalism to admit it's partly your fault. ... [I]t's YOUR job ... the majority of you have conveniently failed to ... Yet your naive ... Maybe you should refrain from dabbling in economics. [Mediaman13, to Greg Marx, CJR, et al.]
One can search the CJR database and find no comment by me that is more a personal attack against a CJR writer than that.
Yet I'm the one accused here of attacking CJR writers.
-- Mediaman suggests that I lied when I said I temper my responses to fellow readers. Clayton Burns' initial comment (#4) to me falsely accused me of machine-posting and being off-topic; I responded (#5) in-kind, and replied (#7) politely, even after Burns had implied (#6) that I faked my name. Abruptly, Mediaman chimed in (#8) with a long-winded post, accusing me of machine-posting and castigating me six ways from Thursday. In fact, a quick glance at not only the current discussion but several other CJR threads over the past few days will show that Mediaman was the first one between us to engage in hostilities, as they were.
Yet I'm the machine-posting attacker who "earned" a virtual lynching.
-- Mediaman, in graf 4 of comment #8, says I "should read [my] own posts more carefully." In grafs 4,5,6 of comment #8, Mediaman invents disagreements where none exist. In graf 6, he employs the same "machine-posting" he accused me of, ignoring my previous rebuttal for the sake of smearing me for my beliefs.
Yet I'm the one who has comprehension issues, and who is crying wolf over personal attacks.
-- Mediaman refers to my criticisms of CJR writings as "cookie-cutter" and "standard"; he suggests, without proof, that they're dishonest. He proceeds to devote the remaining 600 or so words to caricaturing my positions and trying to smear me in the same ways he's done from the start; this, he says, is how he "[hoists me] and those like [me] on [my] own petard."
Yet I'm the "pott calling the kettle black," whose criticisms are "unsubstantiated," "sadly predictable," and "machine-posting."
Q: Why did Mediaman feel the need to direct all these extraneously long-winded, convoluted, "evidence based" [sic] posts at me?
A: Only Mediaman (et al.?) knows, but one thing is evident: it's a good way to muddy the water.
#13 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 11 Oct 2012 at 07:54 PM
If you would rather be known as Dan A., then I am willing to accept it.
I do not think that you are being prevented from expressing your ideas at this site.
Some sites are absurd given the silly and judgmental "moderators."
I do not think that this is one of them.
#14 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sat 13 Oct 2012 at 10:54 PM