Why the Conservative Media got it wrong

Article first published as Why the Conservative Media Got it Wrong on Technorati.

If there was any question as to whether there is such a thing as a conservative media it was settled in the run-up to  the Presidential election.  From Forbes to the WashingtonTimes,  right-leaning  media outlets predicted a close but decisive win for Mitt Romney.

Their assertions were based almost entirely on the Romney campaign platform which focused on perceived weaknesses in the Obama presidency. Let's take a look at a few of them...

The weak Economy...

"Obama and congressional Democrats are clearly to blame for the dismal economy." said Policymic.com...

The argument ignores basic economics if not the calendar. 

For one thing, Economists of any stripe agree that it's impossible to completely recover from a worldwide economic recession (near depression) in less than four years.  It also ignores Wall Street, a favorite economic indicator of the media.

Speaking of Wall Street...

Throughout the Romney campaign President Obama was accused of being "Bad for Business"

Obamaand the belligerent anti-business cartel running Congress have created anincreasingly hostile environment for businesses to operate in. from the Weekly Standard...

On January 20th 2009 (Obama's Inauguration) the Dow Jones industrial average closed at 8279.63.  Election day 2012  found the close at 13245.68.

We all know that Wall Street isn't main street  but the media treats the securities markets as an economic barometer.  A 5000 point spread is hard to ignore.  A number conspicuously absent from the Republican campaigns.

Let's try another one...

Legislative gridlock that could only be resolved with a Romney presidency...

"Obamahas needlessly created political enemies among the electorate.", again from Policymic.com

This one is pure fabrication unless the mere existence of the man is reason enough to despise him.  Remember Republican Senator Mitch McConnell's quote?

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

For the two years since the quote to the National Journal, McConnell has insisted he was taken out of context.  Considering the almost intractable ideologies we've seen in congress throughout the President's first term I'm not sure what other context would apply. 

Both parties were aware of the frustration of the electorate with approval ratings leading up to the election hovering at 17%, an historic low.  "My way or the highway" isn't compromise and even a casually informed voter knows that the President can only propose not write legislation.  After that he has to wait for something to come to his desk  to sign.  Misdirection and the fallacy of the straw man. 

Finally, the straw that was to break the back of any hope of  the President's reelection.

 Democratsare not as motivated as they were in 2008. thanks again Policymic.com...

This one was more wishful thinking than calculated advantage...

Even in the face of reduced voting hours and recent challenges to early voting laws Obama voters turned out in force.   In many cases standing hours in line to cast their ballot.  Chants of "Let Us Vote" still ringing in the electorate's ears from the weekend before the election.

Whether or not voter suppression was going on, the suggestion alone was enough of a motivation to engage the ambivalent.

So how could conservative media get it so wrong? 

"MittRomney will win big tonight.  His popular vote margin will be between 3 –5%.  He will win the Electoral College I believe by a vote of 321 to217,"  Steve Forbes, Nov 6, 2012

Three possible scenarios come to mind. 

·    The people writing this stuff are just pandering to their readers who are comprised largely of well heeled conservatives. 

·    They based their assumptions on campaign rhetoric without any fact checking.  The second Presidential debate should have discouraged that route.

·    They're just the media arm of the Republican party.

None are good options and all call into question the standards of the publication.  Popular media is no longer under any type of fairness doctrine, however,  short of libel.  That's allowed media outlets to safely engage in a political bias.    Nobody would confuse Fox News with Mother Jones for example. 

In the end I offer no cautionary admonition against such gaffs.  If anything this is simply an  example of media consumption (or creation) based on individual biases.  Most bias is usually based on at least some factual information even if it's of our own creation .

Politics as Product

Article first published as Politics as Product on Technorati.

Never has there been such a splendid example that we as a society are severely afflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder.  This flavor of ADD  is far from the inattentive child nervously fidgeting in his classroom, however.  

No, this is an affliction of the first world dominated by the churn of  consumerism.   It expresses itself in everything from fad to fashion and increasingly to critical thinking as well.

We in the first world have become so conditioned to reacting to a marketing message that we require no further information to make a decision.  We make the choice based on the promotion we most easily identify with.  No further deliberation is entertained. 

We've come to expect all of our information to be packaged in this way.  Politics enjoy no immunity.

Our impatience is reflected in the flood of campaign ads that have plagued our airwaves for the past year.  Probably the most obvious example is the current U.S. presidential race.  To date, both candidates for president have raised over 2 Billion dollars for their campaigns with approximately 1.5 billion of that spent thus far. 

Half truths, errors of omission and inflated context are the tools of political persuasion and they easily translate to the world of marketing.  Politics promotes the image by obscuring the product. 

FedEx Office Print Online Large order 20% Discount

We choose our leaders with less care than our favorite sports team.  That's by design and the reason why political positions are largely parroted from political propaganda.  Politicians know voters have a low tolerance for long-winded technical arguments.  Instead they choose a popular position with their base and relentlessly repeat the same message regardless of its veracity.

Remember the Go-Daddy commercials?  In 30 seconds we knew who they were but only because we were constantly exposed to scantily clad models that appealed to a core demographic.   How many of us tried them based on a subconscious reaction to those ads instead of their reputation?

It works just as well for politics as it does for web hosting.   Think about where you get your political news.  Is it C-Span or are you more interested in the packaged offerings of Fox News or MSNBC?

Let's look at a current hot button political issue as an example...

Is it really the fault of a sitting president that the worst economic downturn since the depression of 1929 is still affecting the economy?

It is if you ignore the boring technical argument that it took a decade and a world war to bring the U.S. out of the great depression.   

Unfortunately, our short attention spans won't allow the retort.  We crave instant gratification and sway toward the product that promises it.  Ironically, If challenged we frequently justify our position based on that same marketing construct.  It's circular logic which dovetails nicely with our distaste for depth.

Perhaps it's time to examine how informed we really are.  

TWIT Webcam fun

I'm a webcam noob so I find the oddities of video recording amusing.  An example..

This was taken with my webcam at the base of my Plasma TV during the TWIT live podcast on Sunday April 8, 2012.  Guests were Patrick Norton, Rafe Needleman and IYAZ Akhtar with Leo Laporte the host.

All in good fun..

Enjoy

Everything in Moderation, Politics on the Brink

Article first published as Everything in Moderation, Politics on the Brink on Technorati.

American political coverage is best consumed raw and in small doses free of commercial influence.   I'm not a political junkie by any means so I choose my sources carefully.  Lately it's seems the arguments have degenerated into nothing more than skewed utopian fantasies packaged for traditional media sources.  That leads me to C-span for what I at least believe to be unfiltered political news and events.

The first bit of programming I encountered in my latest consumption was coverage of the Arizona Republican party's Lincoln day lunch and straw poll with guest of honor Rick Santorum, darling of the Tea Party conservatives.

 After his speech the local right wing heroes were paraded up one by one starting with the recently recalled Arizona State Senator, Russell Pearce.  Badly in need of a speechwriter, his poorly constructed message included sexual references and a joke about somebody's scrotum as well as the obligatory "yay for us" message.  No substance there.

He was followed by the equally infamous Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (currently under Federal investigation for criminal abuse of power) who spent most of his time at the podium playing the wounded victim of all those "nasty Democrats."  Not much of substance there either aside from his announcement that he's going to present his report on President Obama's birth certificate on March 1st. In the same breath he proclaimed how he didn't go looking for media attention.   Truly your tax dollars at work.

It's no wonder Arizona was the last territory to achieve statehood in the continental 48. 

Later on I watched part of a program on the Occupy Wall Street Strategy forum where a collection of progressive activists calling themselves the San Francisco 99 percent Coalition spoke of the current ills of capitalism and government in general. 

At a forum held at a San Francisco Unitarian church, guests included: Democrat Rocky Anderson,( Salt Lake City Mayor from 2000 to 2008), Dave Welsh (US Labor Against the War and the San Francisco Labor council), Margaret Flowers (Pres. Candidate and Occupy DC organizer) as well as Tom Gallagher (former Mass. state rep and Progressive Democrats of America . 

The meeting was moderated by Rose Aguilar of KALW Radio and was a veritable gallery of Left wing activists with representation ranging from Democrats to self-proclaimed Socialists.  There was no room for moderates with more than one participant accusing President Barack Obama of being a Republican.  Another audience member overtly suggested the end of capitalism in Toto. 

What was striking in both examples was the extreme viewpoints being offered as a moderate position.  Nothing short of complete capitulation to their ideology would satisfy either assembly.  Should these two groups ever occupy the same room I have no doubt that blood would spill.

It's almost amusing when you consider that both sides basically want the same thing.  Both seek to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.  Of course the most heated exchanges generally concern what constitutes a baby.

There was another program I watched between these two.  It was a discussion with Peter Orszag (Former director of the Office and Management and Budget under the Obama Administration) on the economy and reasons for its slow recovery.  Like any presentation on economics there were lots of charts and references to indicators of one sort or another.  There was one chart I found particularly interesting, however.  The chart showed a relationship between the decline of political moderates and the economy.  It seems there is a direct relationship between political ideology in Washington and the speed and strength of an economic recovery. 

With division in congress rising to a level on par with the first Continental Congress circa 1786, it appears that extreme ideology not only degenerates the discussion but the economy as well.  With the decline in political moderates and the polarization of the two dominant political parties it's no surprise that compromise comes only after brinkmanship. 

Ultimately it seems that extreme political views serve no productive purpose other than to foster political gridlock and sound bites for a depraved mass media.  In a country with a voracious appetite for reality shows that sensationalize conflict it's not surprising that political antagonism is so popular on the news.  Both political camps use ever escalating rhetoric to espouse radical views they can't reasonably hold.

 It's unlikely that extreme conservatives at the Lincoln day luncheon would choose to live in Hitler's Germany any more than progressives at the occupy wall street event would choose Soviet Russia.  In that light, extremism has no merit as "My way or the highway" rarely provides either outcome.

State of the Union 2012 (Updated)

Funny how a year later almost nothing has changed...

Item's in parentheses are updated information.

Originally published on Technorati as State of the Union 2012.

At least nobody shouted "You Lie!" during the speech.  

Still, it wasn't difficult to distinguish party affiliation during the hour long oratory.  Most Republican's remained seated for most of it with politely folded hands and a 10000 yard stare.

With at least a cursory level of decorum on display in the House chambers last night we witnessed the 2012 edition of the State of The Union with President Barack Obama presiding.

The economy took precedence as the primary focus of the speech with new tax incentives for companies that create jobs domestically while removing them from those that create them elsewhere.    A new investigative unit called the Trade Enforcement Unit is charged with investigating unfair trade practices and monitoring the flow of counterfeit  and unsafe products into the U.S.

Free trade agreements between the U.S. and South Korea, Colombia and Panama were also touted as helping to increase trade and move American products into foreign markets.
(During the election these agreements that had bipartisan support in both houses were used as political barbs by the Republican party)

The president also encouraged private/public partnerships to retrain unemployed workers for technical jobs that otherwise remain unfilled.  He went on to cite the example of a single mother displaced from her job as a mechanic in North Carolina.

" Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie’s tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant."

(This initiative has gone nowhere sacrificed on the altar of the year's budget wrangling)

The cost of higher education was also addressed with an admonition to post secondary institutions to keep tuition costs down or risk the loss of public funding. 
(A great idea but a toothless mandate although new Federal student loans are no longer administered by private servicers.  Pre-existing loans have seen little to no change)

There was also mention of the need to address immigration issues regarding foreign born students studying in the U.S. who are deported because of their technically illegal status.  The President used this as an example to highlight the need for immigration reform.  From the Speech,

 " The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan (It did) , let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country"

The President also encouraged support for small businesses by allowing easier access to financing and tax incentives for providing better wages and job creation.  He went on to propose the elimination of unnecessary and cumbersome Federal regulations exemplified by the example of dairy farmer's requirement to comply with federal regulations regarding cleanup after a milk spillage because milk was classified as an oil. 

He went on to mention the need for investment in renewable energy and cited support of domestic exploration of energy resources.
(So long as oil, coal or natural gas is considered renewable, there isn't a problem for conservative lawmakers.  Public investment has been largely blocked by congressional deadlock)

The President also called for investigation of risky and abusive behavior of those in the financial industry by  a new Financial Crimes Unit under the supervision of the Attorney General of The U.S.

(Apart from heated questioning of mortgage bankers during Senate hearings, this too was largely a toothless mandate)

In his speech he highlighted the need for cooperation across party lines concerning budgetary and tax fairness issues.  The President also proposed a ban on insider trading for members of congress to curtail the influence of business lobbyists on politicians. 
("Fairness" is apparently an ambiguous term even a year later)

The measure would prevent members of congress from owning stocks in companies that they have a direct influence over or from.

(This did get through congress)

Recognition of the Military's success in eliminating Osama Bin Laden  was mentioned when the President said,

 "For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country."

(Even conservatives had to admit this fact but the political machine did its best to bury it)

The President also stressed  the need to support returning Veterans with funding for the VA and tax incentives to employers who hire veterans returning from service.

(Current budget negotiations still have VA funding on the chopping block.  A number of private funding organizations have sprang up to try to fill the gap)

As with any State of the Union we've come to expect a high level of political ideology and a wish list of associated ideals from the Executive branch.  Regardless of the motivations that craft the annual Presidential address it's understood that most of the admonitions will not come to pass. 

The Republican response to the speech from Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, for example,  was either diametrically opposed to the majority of the content or focused on election year political rhetoric.   A notable quote from the governor, "  he cannot claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse:"

(Neither can you you governor)

For the previous 4 decades the ideologies of both political parties have prevented true bi-partisanship. The result had been either congressional deadlock or biased legislation in favor of the ideals of the party in power.  

Unfortunately we are a nation of strong ideologies with political parties locked in a battle between the 20th century's New Deal and the 19th Century's industrial expansion.  Both have their merits and deficiencies but neither  is compatible with the other.  Unfortunately, more often than not this makes for an environment hostile to compromise that no well crafted oratory can overcome.

If the State of the Union serves no other purpose it at least exemplifies the constituent components  of the ideologies that prevent progress.