October 2010

Politicians duck the press, try to avoid accountability

[Commentary] In this campaign season, instead of running toward the news media, more candidates than usual are running away.

Some are seeking to control their messages by shopping for outlets they perceive as friendly, by ducking the national news media, or by avoiding debates. It's a nice trick for candidates -- particularly uninformed novices afraid of unscripted gaffes -- but a dirty trick on voters, who are losing what little opportunity they have in this age of sound bites to see how candidates deal with tough, independent questioning. The situation has become so bad that Politico has dubbed this the "year of the missing candidate." In part, the trend is an escalation of the adversarial relationship candidates have always had with reporters who break unflattering stories that office-seekers wish never became public. In the past, though, most candidates had to deal with all comers -- those they liked and those they didn't -- or risk failing to get their messages out. What's different today is that the rise of cable's conservative Fox News and its left-leaning rival MSNBC has given candidates outlets where they believe they can get kid-gloves treatment -- and sometimes do. When former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin advised one Republican to "speak through Fox News," other conservatives took heed. Many have sought to shun the broader press and, by extension, the public. While this is mostly a conservative phenomenon, some Democrats have adopted the same arrogant attitude.

How have candidates tried to avoid accountability? Ducking debates. Playing hide and seek. Picking favorite reporters. Acting thuggish.

A lot of this is as absurd as it sounds: Candidates running for election running from the public. Campaigns are meant to test the candidates' views on the issues, their character, their intelligence and their ability to weather the rough and tumble that governing will entail. If candidates are afraid to answer questions, and prefer to hide behind handlers and TV commercials, you have to wonder about their fitness for public office.

The tea party and the media

Most local tea party organizers interviewed in an extensive canvass this month by The Washington Post said media coverage of their groups has been fair, suggesting that perceptions of antagonism between the tea party and traditional news media are overstated.

Seventy-six percent of local organizers said that coverage of their groups is either very fair or somewhat fair. Only 8 percent said coverage has been very unfair; 15 percent said somewhat unfair. The canvass showed that more than three-fourths of group leaders said their activities have received local media coverage, revealing the depth of the news media's -- and the public's -- fascination with the tea party.

Media coverage of the tea party has evolved markedly since the groups first began forming in February 2009. Major news outlets paid little attention to the first wave of tax-day protests in April 2009 and even a large march the following September in Washington. But attention quickly focused on the impassioned and sometimes-raucous protests that tea party activists continued to stage, notably those leading up to passage of the health-care overhaul law. Accusations by members of Congress that protesters had hurled epithets prompted a wave of media coverage over whether the tea party was based on anti-Obama racism. A string of stories focused on the racially charged statements and signs of certain protesters. Such coverage drew criticism from Sarah Palin and other conservative leaders. But as media outlets have spent more time following tea party protesters around the country -- and as more studied analyses of the movement and its members have emerged -- the coverage has grown more nuanced.

Corporate campaign ads haven't followed Supreme Court's prediction

The Supreme Court sent a wave of corporate and union money flooding into campaign ads this year, but it did so with the promise that the public would know -- almost instantly -- who was paying for them.

"With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in January. "This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages."

But Justice Kennedy and the high court majority were wrong. Because of loopholes in tax laws and a weak enforcement policy at the Federal Election Commission, corporations and wealthy donors have been able to spend huge sums on campaign ads, confident the public will not know who they are, election law experts say.

Corporate donors have been able to hide their contributions despite the opposition of shareholders and customers -- the very groups cited by Justice Kennedy. By an overwhelming margin, shareholders say they don't want their companies devoting money to political ads. Customers are also easily angered by corporate political stands.

Secret Money in Iowa

[Commentary] The American Future Fund was started with money from Bruce Rastetter, an ethanol company executive. The fund, based in Iowa, has spent at least $574,000 to run a series of negative ads against incumbent Bruce Braley (D-Iowa). Rep Braley has also been the subject of $250,000 worth of attack ads by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which also has not disclosed its contributors. He is only one of many candidates being pummeled this year by secret money and shamefully false advertising.

The American Action Network, another conservative group that does not disclose its donors, is targeting Rep Chris Murphy (D-CT) in his race against Sam Caligiuri, a Republican. The group is running an ad claiming that the health reform law, which Rep Murphy supported and Caligiuri wants to repeal, requires jail time for people who do not buy health insurance. The law does no such thing. At least one Connecticut television station has stopped running the ad.

The voters, who are the real victims of these distortions, haven't the slightest idea who is paying for the ads. But rest assured that the big corporations and donors will make their identities known to the winners they push into office. The price for their support will be high.

America's degraded public debate

[Commentary] Contrary to majority opinion in the US media, National Public Radio was perfectly within its rights -- and was right -- to fire Juan Williams for last week's comments that Muslims made him nervous on airplanes, delivered on the Fox TV network.

It is less a question of what he said than where he said it. I would go further. NPR should have fired him years ago, on the grounds that running off at the mouth in the putrid kitchen that is talk media is inconsistent with the higher standards of objectivity practised at NPR. NPR should also tell Mara Liasson, another staffer who appears regularly on Fox (as a liberal punching bag for the conservative heavies) that she has a choice to make; stick with her employers, or change partners for the (fleeting) fame and fortune that Rupert Murdoch is accustomed to dangling.

The Williams incident also served to remind how degraded political debate has become. In conservative demonology - exemplified by, but not confined to, Fox -- NPR stands as a redoubt of the "far left," a bastion of political correctness and guilty of closet racism, all accusations now laid at its door by the once progressive Williams. In reality, it is the closest America comes to the BBC, wielding its liberal tendencies with a small stick. It is also a bit smug and boring and, fair enough, politically correct.

Meg Whitman won't agree to abandon negative ads

Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman drew a chorus of boos from the capacity crowd at a major women's gathering after going on the attack against Democratic opponent Jerry Brown and refusing to withdraw negative television ads, as Brown said he would, for the rest of the campaign.

The raucous scene took place at California first lady Maria Shriver's annual Women's Conference, where the two candidates appeared onstage with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger before a mostly female crowd of 14,000 at the Long Beach convention center. The conversation was led by "Today" show host Matt Lauer who threw the candidates a curve when he described the race as one of the most contentious ever and challenged them to drop their highly personal attack ads. "End the negativity," he said, to cheers from the crowd. "Pull your negative ads and replace them with positive ads," he added, to give California voters "a break." Brown, the state attorney general, said, "If Meg wants to do that, I'll be glad to do it. ... I'll pledge that right now." Whitman, however, appeared uncomfortable and demurred, saying she had been a victim of campaign "character attacks." The former eBay CEO said some of her ads were designed to point out differences between her and Brown on policy issues, while others highlighted his record as a former two-term governor and Oakland mayor.

TV Spots Shrink to Match Attention Spans

TV commercials are shrinking along with attention spans and advertising budgets.

The 15-second ad is increasingly common, gradually supplanting the 30-second spot just as it knocked off the full-minute pitch decades ago. For viewers, it means more commercials in a more rapid-fire format. For advertisers, shorter commercials are a way to save some money, and research shows they hold on to more eyeballs than the longer format.

"It used to be that the most valuable thing on the planet was time, and now the most valuable thing on the planet is attention," says John Greening, associate professor at Northwestern University's journalism school and a former executive vice president at ad agency DDB Chicago.

The number of 15-second television commercials has jumped more than 70 percent in five years to nearly 5.5 million last year, according to Nielsen. They made up 34 percent of all national ads on the air last year, up from 29 percent in 2005. Commercial-skipping digital video recorders and distractions such as laptops and phones have shortened viewers' attention spans, says Deborah Mitchell, executive director of the Center for Brand and Product Management at the University of Wisconsin.

Viewers are also watching TV streamed on sites like Hulu, where advertisers have less of a presence. So companies figure: "Why spend money on anything longer anyway? Plus, if they're going to skip our ads, at least we have a better chance of them seeing something if it's really short."

PayPal Unveils Payment System Aimed at Digital Goods

EBay's PayPal unit unveiled a new system aimed at making it easier for consumers to pay for small online purchases of digital news articles, video clips or games.

The system, which PayPal disclosed at its second annual conference for software developers in San Francisco, will allow consumers to pay for such digital goods with as few as two clicks, without switching websites or having to re-enter credit-card or bank details. PayPal said it will continue charging sellers of digital goods five cents plus 5% of the transaction price for purchases of less than $12. The new system's debut comes as PayPal seeks to protect its turf in online payments from rivals, including credit-card giant Visa Inc., and amid shifting business strategies by media companies.

Business Tasks Bring Out Serious Side of Apps

Wireless apps aren't just about slingshotting birds or drinking virtual beers anymore. Increasingly, businesses are getting in on the craze, too.

Mainstream business tasks from sales and marketing to customer service and consumer research are quickly making their way from desktops to smartphones, as companies try to take advantage of increasingly powerful mobile devices to free up sales staff and pare back paperwork. The surge in wireless apps for business opens a new market for phone companies such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Wireless. For wireless operators, the business apps could lead to more sales of devices, data plans and consulting deals to help companies manage their mobile work forces. Government agencies are also using specialized apps.

Fox Sends 'Cease and Desist' Letter to Cablevision

Fox Networks kicked its retransmission consent battle with Cablevision Systems up a notch, firing off a cease and desist letter to the cable company claiming that it is encouraging theft of copyrighted content.

The source of Fox's ire is a report that some of the cable company's customer service reps are directing customers who call in to complain about missing sports on Fox to websites that offer the programming illegally. "This is an obvious tactic from News Corp, which blocked the Internet, to shift focus away from their pulling the plug on 3 million New York households," Cablevision said. "Fox should cease and desist its World Series blackout, put its programming back on Cablevision and agree to binding arbitration."

The companies also sent the Federal Communications Commission additional comments, replying to letters each company sent to the FCC on Oct 25.

Benton

Search