The Kicker RSS
Fri, 9 May 2008
Club Med(vedev)
The inauguration of Dmitri Medvedev as Russia's new president this week is one of those fantastic Historical Occasions for which air quotes (yes, "air quotes") seem designed. In the sense that the inauguration is basically a farce. Medvedev is, if not a full-on puppet of Putin, then at least overshadowed by his predecessor, the power-consolidating soon-to-be-Prime Minister.
Which makes The New York Times's account of Medvedev's inauguration, written by the inimitable CJ Chivers, wonderfully a propos:
Dmitri Medvedev, the Kremlin insider and unprepossessing lawyer who had never held elected office before, was sworn in as Russia's president on Wednesday inside the Grand Kremlin Palace.
and
Mr. Medvedev has also presented himself in paradoxical ways.
He has often complimented the style and achievements of Mr. Putin, with whom he appears to have both a friendship and unwavering public support. But at times Mr. Medvedev has publicly championed the rule of law and the importance of human rights — both of which faced intensive pressure during Mr. Putin’s two terms.
and
His critics have said that he is little more than Mr. Putin’s puppet, and that his pledges to liberalize the country and commit to human rights are undermined by the very means of his election victory, against a weak slate of pro-Kremlin candidates. The Russian government allowed no true opposition candidates to compete.Posted by at 12:24 PM | Permalink | Comment on this post
EJ Graff Joins the XX Factor
The XX Factor, Slate's women-written blog, welcomes a new voice today: EJ Graff. Graff, the author of Getting Even and What Is Marriage For?, is an expert on social policy, with a particular focus on women's issues. She's a senior correspondent for The American Prospect and a regular contributor to TPMCafe. (She has also written for Columbia Journalism Review, the magazine, on several occasions.)
Graff should make a great addition to the XX Factor; we look forward to reading her contributions.
Posted by at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comment on this postThu, 8 May 2008
PEJ Gets the Last Laugh
In what might just be one of the most fun pieces of research ever conducted, ever, the Project for Excellence in Journalism spent 2007—yes, the whole year—watching, analyzing, and likely guffawing at footage of...The Daily Show.
Ugh. Why do data analysts always have all the fun?
Anyway, per the study's summary report, released today:
When Americans last year were asked to name the journalist they most admired, showing up at No. 4 on the list was a comedian. Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show on Comedy Central and former master of ceremonies at Academy Award shows, tied in the rankings with anchormen Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and cable host Anderson Cooper.
Are Americans confused? What is Stewart doing on his program, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, which might cause people to consider him a journalist? How is the show similar to, and different from, what people get from the mainstream press?
And among PEJ's (quite interesting) findings:
* The program’s clearest focus is politics, especially in Washington. U.S. foreign affairs, largely dominated by the Bush Administration’s policies in Iraq, Washington politics and government accounted for nearly half (47%) of the time spent on the program. Overall, The Daily Show news agenda is quite close to those of cable news talk shows.
* The press itself is another significant focus on The Daily Show. In all, 8% of the time was made up of segments about the press and news media. That is more than double the amount of coverage of media in the mainstream press overall during the same period.
* A good deal of the news, however, is also absent from The Daily Show. In 2007, for example, major events such as the tragic Minneapolis bridge collapse were never discussed. And the shootings at Virginia Tech, the most covered story within a given week in 2007 by the overall press, received only a cursory mention.
* Republicans in 2007 tended to bear the brunt of ridicule from Stewart and his crew. From July 1 through November 1, Stewart’s humor targeted Republicans more than three times as often as Democrats. The Bush Administration alone was the focus of almost a quarter (22%) of the segments in this time period.
* The lineup of on-air guests was more evenly balanced by political party. But our subjective sense from viewing the segments is that Republicans faced harsher criticism during the interviews with Stewart. Whether this is because the show is simply liberal or because the Republicans control the White House is harder to pin down.
Will The Colbert Report soon have its moment on PEJ's seat of heat? Stay tuned.
Star Wars Episode VI: Re-Spurn of the Jedi
Howard Kurtz today takes a macrocosmic—literally, macrocosmic—view of the media's post-Tuesday treatment of the Democrats' Epic Battle for Cosmic Domina—er, Nomination:
For the moment, there seem to be two separate media universes out there.
In the mainstream print galaxy, Hillary's "options" are "dwindling," her "path" to the nomination is "narrowing," the "math" is "challenging," Obama is drawing "closer" to the prize.
On MSNBC, the morning shows and the blogosphere, it's game, set, match. The race is finis, the last rites are being administered, and the debate is about Obama's chances against McCain.
It's a fascinating case study: Do the remnants of the MSM that are still treating this as a semi-competitive race believe that Clinton has a serious shot at the nomination, but feel bound by the rule of objectivity not to say so?
Or are the pundits going out on a limb, prematurely writing off Clinton as they have done several times before?
I'd say it's both. Talk about worlds colliding.
Going Brangelina on Barack
In a New York Times article today about how the entertainment press is giving Britney-sized attention to this year's presidential candidates ("It's the greatest reality show on television," per Inside Edition's producer), Clinton spokesman Jay Carson explains why the campaigns might also love Us back.
What might a People or Extra interview offer a candidate that a major newspaper or network news sit-down might not?
"The interviews are usually very issue-oriented and not process-focused, and it's an important way to reach a lot of voters who may not be watching the Sunday shows every Sunday," Mr. Carson said.
So, to Carson's mind, a candidate is more likely to be asked about issues (rather than strategy and process and horserace) by Star than while in The Situation Room. Plus, not everyone is Meeting the Press.
The Times, perhaps sensing the dis on the Serious Press, adds this parenthetical: ("It also helps when a typical question, as Mrs. Clinton was asked recently by Entertainment Tonight, is about how she manages to 'look so good in the morning'.)" Which actually sounds pretty "process-focused" to me.
McCain Makes News
Appears on Daily Show--a surefire way to get the (uncritical) attention of the campaign press.
McCain talked about how, as the Democratic primary continues, he has been out there "raising money" and "doing townhall meetings," to which Stewart replied:
So that still happens, even when the news media doesn't report?
What does the news media report? Well, The Trail blog at the Washington Post notes:
The senator seemed at ease throughout the two-part interview, pretending to walk off at one point and, during a commercial break, urging Stewart to eject members of his traveling press who were seated in the audience's front row. (Stewart let them stay.)
Oh, that McCain. He has a way with the press, doesn't he? (Or is it, he has his way with the press)?
Meanwhile, I didn't think McCain seemed so "at ease" (am I projecting? Maybe I was just a little uneasy or maybe he just seemed at little too at ease?) when he was giggling about the question he received at a town hall meeting from the "very attractive young woman wearing a t-shirt that said, 'John McCain doesn't represent me' or 'John McCain doesn't represent my views' or something."
STEWART: What did she say?McCAIN: She said [giggle], why did I want to discriminate against women [giggle, giggle]?
Comedy!
Posted by at 08:39 AM | Permalink | Comment on this postNews Deprived
At washingtonmonthly.com, Kevin Drum is asking his readers:
If you could have only one source of news in the world, what would it be? You may pick one (1) magazine, newspaper, news broadcast, radio show, blog, or newsletter. Only one. And it's the only source of news you get. What would it be?
Some of the more popular (shocking!) replies among over 200 comments so far: The New York Times (a few specify nytimes.com), NPR, BBC, The Economist, Talkingpointsmemo.com, The Daily Show...
Posted by at 08:17 AM | Permalink | Comment on this postWed, 7 May 2008
About Being Distracted...
Luckily, my quest for ever more juicy campaign minutiae brought me to Time's Swampland blog just now where I found -- yes, minutiae (Last night? On Clinton's campaign plane? Before anyone knew for sure the outcome in Indiana? Clinton's campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe "came back to talk to the press with a glass of red wine in his hand" and declared victory!) but I also found a post from Jay Carney linking to this sobering op-ed from yesterday's Washington Post (I'll let Carney give you the nutshell below, but you should read the op-ed as well).
Blogs Carney:
I managed to wean my focus away from the presidential campaign just long enough yesterday to read an outstanding op-ed by Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post about how the next great international crisis and war could well ignite over.....Abkhazia.
"Ab-wha'?" you ask.
And that's Applebaum's point exactly. We're so consumed with our domestic election -- and, to the extent we're focusing overseas at all, with Iraq -- that we're paying scant attention to important, and potentially dangerous, developments around the world....Let's hope we all get away with it.
Watching The Place for Politics -- or any of the cable channels, really -- it is all too easy to forget there is anything else going on at all. (Myanmar? Lemme see...I can tell you that Laura Bush held a press conference the other day on Myanmar. Yup, the First Lady! She took questions from White House reporters and everything!)
Posted by at 12:05 PM | Permalink | Comment on this postMcCain In Media Crosshairs? "In Time"
How The Media Works 101: Can't Walk and Chew Gum, with Professors Chris Matthews and Tim Russert (and input from grad students/T.A.s Rachel Maddow and Dan Abrams) on MSNBC last night.
MATTHEWS: Do you think [Democrats worrying about the effects of ongoing primary] are aware of the way the media works? I was explaining this to a group of students the other night: As long as we focus on the the fight between Hillary and Barack, perhaps recently just on Barack's problems, it blocks the sun from the problems that are incipient and coming to be with McCain --his problem with the war, his problem with the economy...The more we focus on the Jeremiah Wright story, the less we focus on Hillary's problem with candor and the more we completely ignore John McCain's problems. Do you think the Democratic war horses know as long as there's a fire going on in one of those rings, the Barack Obama ring, we will not focus as much on John McCain's weaknesses?
RUSSERT: Yes. They believed initially ignoring the McCain campaign was beneficial and helpful to the Democrats. But as this is has gone on, they see in their minds --we get flooded with e-mails, Senator McCain making a mistake on Shia versus Sunni, making mistake on the first Persian Gulf War and the second vis-a-vis oil, and his own relationship with Pastor Hagee and why isn't that talked about and reported on the way Reverend Wright's relationship with Senator Obama is talked about.
But all of that in time. It is only May. This has been going on for some time but it will be a long, long campaign. When Senator McCain is back in the media's light, he’ll receive the same kind of scrutiny.
We'll stop ignoring McCain's mistakes when we start focusing on McCain's mistakes! A little patience, please.
A similar topic popped up later in MSNBC's primary coverage last night (hour seven?) as Rachel Maddow and Dan Abrams chatted about those exit polls in which some Clinton voters tell pollsters they'll vote for McCain or stay home in November.
MADDOW: John McCain is an attractive candidate to a lot of people who identify as moderate voters -- at least he is now with the way the media treats him. If he gets redefined by a strong Democratic opponent and by a hungry press, then he won't be as attractive. But right now with the brand he brings from 25 years of being essentially tongue-bathed by the press and being called a maverick, then he does have a lot of appeal.
ABRAMS: I agree with you about the media coverage of John McCain. That’s why we have a segment on The Verdict called "Teflon John" which relates to the fact that the media seems to love him….
MADDOW: But everyone else hasn’t made that pivot yet even though you have.
ABRAMS: I don’t mean to sit here and say, "We’re so great," it’s just that the bottom line has been that the Democrats have been going after each other every night and we cover each and every one of those battles and when it comes to McCain, we don’t seem to cover it. Yet.
So. Watch your back, Sen. McCain. Consider yourself warned. The Way the Media Works is: we may be distracted at the moment but we will shine our disinfecting light on you just as soon as--
Breaking News: Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $6.4 million over the past month!
Morning After (Press Takes Pulse)
NBC's Today Show this morning: "Is it over?"
ABC's Good Morning America: "End of the Road?"
Front page of today's New York Post:
And then there's the print version of today's Wall Street Journal (damn you, early deadline!) informing readers on A-1 that: "Obama Wins N. Carolina; Indiana Too Close to Call."
Posted by at 08:41 AM | Permalink | Comment on this post
