FAIR weighs in on Dem convention coverage

[G_j]

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/dnc-boston.html

MEDIA ADVISORY:
Covering the Convention:
Media Pack Stick to the Script at DNC

August 4, 2004

Every four years, journalists complain about the same thing: Political
conventions are dull, scripted and almost entirely devoid of any "real
news." Though the argument is illogical at best-- most events in a
political campaign are "scripted," but journalists still find a way to
cover them-- it probably explains why the networks decided to provide just
three hours of prime-time coverage of the Democratic convention in Boston
last week.

Reporters and pundits tend to look for appealing storylines that they can
promote throughout their coverage, and the Democratic convention was no
different. Much of the broadcast coverage was framed by the idea that the
Democrats were primarily concerned with setting a "positive" tone-- that
the party elite and John Kerry wanted to blunt any serious criticisms of
George W. Bush and accentuate the positive aspects of the Kerry-Edwards
ticket. The New York Times (7/26/04) claimed that "the word has gone out
from Sen. John Kerry himself that speakers must accentuate the positive
and eliminate the negative." The piece did not actually quote Kerry or
anyone from his campaign saying this; in fact, the paper noted that one
spokesperson explained that speakers' remarks "would be going through the
same vetting process that conventions have used for decades."

Nonetheless, the idea was echoed throughout the media: Reporter John
Roberts told CBS Evening News viewers on the same day as the Times piece
that "the edict has gone down from Democratic leaders, for all of the
speakers here, all of the celebrities and everyone else who will be
attending, to keep the message positive. Don't get lost in the negative
campaign. Don't get lost in the message about the Republicans as opposed
to the message about the Democrats."

Despite the perennial complaints from media that conventions are too
scripted, many in the press corps seemed most interested in policing the
convention for anyone who might stray from this script. Their golden
opportunity came when former presidential contender Al Sharpton spoke
(7/28/04). The MSNBC pundits were none too thrilled about Sharpton before
he took to the podium, deriding his effect on the entire primary process:
Chris Matthews asserted that Sharpton "probably hurt this campaign. He was
a humorist. Everything was a joke." Newsweek's Howard Fineman agreed that
Sharpton's campaign "was not to be taken seriously, frankly." Historian
Doris Kearns Goodwin asked the panelists to "think of the contrast between
Jesse Jackson in '88.... or you think of Obama the other night, last
night, where he's a future candidate." Goodwin didn't make clear why
Sharpton could only be compared to other African Americans. Nor did
Fineman, noting derisively that Sharpton "stayed first class wherever he
went," explain where he thought Sharpton ought to have been staying on the
campaign trail.

..more...

[glitch]

1. I can't tell you how many times I heard the convention was 'scripted'

Sunday. This is pretty sad considering I don't watch cable or network news. In fact this was from progressive outlets. So sad that they all sounded so... scripted.

[jpgray]

2. The pretended to be mad at how 'scripted' it was

Then Sharpton went off script, and they pretended to be mad about that. What did we do to deserve such bilge?

[hedda_foil]

3. They really nailed CNN!

CNN seemed especially eager to feature immediate responses to Democratic speeches from not only Republican analysts, but from Bush-Cheney spokespeople. Following John Edwards' speech, CNN's Wolf Blitzer turned to Bush strategist Ralph Reed (7/28/04), who in rapid succession laid out a wholly deceptive case against Kerry: "He didn't talk about the fact that John Kerry has consistently over 19 years voted for higher taxes, deep cuts in intelligence and voted to cut or kill every major weapons system that's winning the war against terrorism." All of Reed's contentions are familiar, and have been thoroughly debunked (Extra!, 8/04; FAIR Media Advisory, 5/20/04). But Blitzer saw no need to challenge Reed's misrepresentations. While it's true that convention coverage should be more than just a succession of partisan speeches, real journalism requires that reporters evaluate the claims that are being heard by viewers-- not just follow partisan spin with partisan spin in the opposite direction.

But it wasn't just the guests who were putting such talking points front and center. As Blitzer himself put it (7/28/04), "One of the biggest problems that John Kerry has had is this Republican criticism that he flip-flops, that he votes one way, the next day, he votes another way. That is a serious criticism." Blitzer did not elaborate on what made that particular talking point "serious." Similarly, CNN's Judy Woodruff claimed (7/28/04) that the Bush-Cheney campaign "have produced reams of documents to back up votes that made in the United States Senate that they say show... he has not voted to support the kind of military spending that would create a strong America."

Actually, as a guest explained to Woodruff back in February (CNN, 2/25/04; see Extra!, 7-8/04), the documents the Republicans have produced focus on a single vote that Kerry cast back in 1991, presenting this vote against a Defense appropriations bill as a vote against ''every major weapons system." Nevertheless, Woodruff continued to echo the Republican line five months later (7/26/04): "You've got the Republicans practically camped outside the FleetCenter saying that what's going on here is an extreme makeover, that John Kerry has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, that he's voted against defense votes one after another, even though this convention is talking about a strong America. Are the Democrats going to be able to get away with it?" Whether the GOP would "get away" with distorting Kerry's record was apparently not a concern. The public, meanwhile, might be most concerned with whether media feel they can "get away" with reciting partisan talking points instead of reporting.

[G_j]

4. "Are the Democrats going to be able to get away with it?"

Whether the GOP would "get away" with distorting Kerry's record was apparently not a concern."

"The public, meanwhile, might be most concerned with whether media feel they can "get away" with reciting partisan talking points instead of reporting."