HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

There are two things about our political discourse that frustrate me to no end.

First, there's the near-endless use of what I've called the "some people think" method of argument by political journalists. As I've said before, its a device used by lazy thinkers and writers that allows them to frame a story in whatever way is most convenient to them. More of often that not, it is used by pundits within the DC community to pass off conversations among DC elites as if those conversations were something more substantial than inside-the-beltway nonsense.

Second, there's the equally predictable use of the journalistic equivalent of the passive voice, a technique that often serves precisely the same function detailed above. Glenn Greenwald takes a look at this topic today, and he absolutely nails what makes it so offensive and damaging. An excerpt:

...yesterday, The Politico's so-called "chief political columnist," Roger Simon, published a 674-word article -- prominently touted on The Politico's front page -- exclusively about John Edwards' haircuts, cleverly headlined "Hair today, gone tomorrow."

To begin his article, Simon pronounces:

It is the haircut that will not die.

He can spin it, he can gel it, he can mousse it. But it is not going away.

Simon marvels at how enduring the story is -- as though there is some phenomenon keeping the story alive independent of the fact that the gossipy, tiny-minded, substance-free "political journalists" plaguing our nation -- from Roger Simon and Maureen Dowd to Adam Nagourney and Mickey Kaus and Matt Drudge -- have not stopped talking about "the story." It's tantamount to someone who keeps chewing their food and spitting it across the room and then marvelling at how filthy things are and writing columns bewilderingly examining how and why the floor is covered with crusted food and what that signifies.

This is at least the eighth time that The Politico -- which gloriously "broke" the story -- has referenced Edwards' haircut. The featured article yesterday is the second on this topic from Simon, who is not a mere columnist, but is The Politico's "Senior Political Columnist."
Even The Politico -- for which no story is too petty or Drudge-following -- seems embarrassed by its obsession. Thus, Simon claims in his article that he "was willing never to write about the haircuts again," and The Politico's front page headline claims: "Roger reluctantly takes another look at the haircut that will not die." In the article itself, Simon offers up this excuse for why he is writing his "newspaper's" eighth story in less than two weeks about John Edwards' hair:

This is bad: When you go to Google and enter "Edwards haircut," the first item that comes up is a story by Bill Wundram in The Quad-City Times of Davenport, Iowa. . . .

The article got 324 comments from readers. When people inside the Beltway are talking about your haircut, it doesn't matter much. When people in Iowa are talking about your haircut, you may have a problem.

So Simon uses the excuse that the item in the Iowa paper received 324 comments as proof that this is a huge story outside the Beltway, that there is this spontaneous groundswell of interest among salt-of-the-earth ordinary Iowans in John Edwards' hair. Therefore, he simply has to write about it.

But what Simon omits is that the reason the item in the Iowa paper received so many comments is because Matt Drudge linked to it, just as he linked to The Politico's story on this "issue." That fact was something that countless commenters to the Iowa item mentioned, including the sixth comment, followed by many others.

The Politico's Senior Political Columnist tries to claim that there is some sort of groundswell of interest in the Edwards/haircut story compelling him to write about it, when in reality, it is nothing more -- as usual -- than the fact that he and his colleague Matt Drudge and other similar types are chattering about it, and they mistake that chatter, which is all they know and understand, for what the "ordinary people" find important. And that, in turn, makes them chatter about it more and more, feeding that self-affirming, self-important, self-centered Beltway journalist cycle endlessly.

This really is a textbook example of everything that is wrong with the coverage of politics in our country. Hiding behind the mythic idea of the journalist as "an objective observer," political correspondents act and write as if their coverage is not a critical part of the process they themselves are covering. Stories "appear" and "will not die." "Some people" are talking. "Many" are interested and "continue to question." The issue is "of grave concern to many." "Some" question how this will impact the campaign.

Perhaps I am wrong here, but I would assume that most political journalists have had some formal training to prepare them for their careers, either by studying journalism or politics. In either case, even if their training was only at the community or junior college level, I would also assume that they have at some point come across basic communication theories such as framing and agenda setting. Moreover, even if their formal training did not introduce such concepts, given that these same concepts are frequently discussed by campaign consultants and media spokespeople every day, I would also assume that they continue to come in contact with these ideas on an ongoing basis.

So given all that... why is it that they all continue to act as if they are ignorant of their own role in our political process? Or worse, as Greenwald documents in today's post, to dismiss those who question their behavior as partisans ignorant of the truth about how "real political journalism" work?

Today's piece about John Edwards' hair is but one example in a long line of such stories, and I promise you, if you make an effort to stay conscious of this you will see it each and every day. After the Judith Miller fiasco (short version: Miller is fed lies from senior White House staffers. Said lies are published in the NYT. The very same senior staffers than use this coverage as evidence of independent confirmation of their own lies), you would think journalists would understand that this is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed. Instead, we get endless stories about how their own manufactured stories "will not die."

UPDATE: As if on cue, Political Wire takes a sneak peek at the latest National Journal Political "Insiders Poll." The "Insiders" were asked the following question: "Which of your party’s top-tier presidential candidates, if any, have inflicted lasting damage on themselves this year?"

Here's what they had to say about the Democratic field:

Among Democratic insiders, 59% thought that "none of them" had caused themselves lasting damage. However, the bad news for John Edwards is that 24% responded that he had caused himself lasting damage with news his campaign paid $400 for a haircut. No other candidate received more than 7 percent in the responses.

24% of "insiders" believe that a $400 haircut has caused "lasting damage" to Edwards' candidacy. One wonders what "outsiders" would have to say about it.