Isebrand.com

The Bull about the Bully Pulpit - George Edwards and the Powerless Presidential Bully Pulpit : The New Yorker

When you’re running for President, giving a good speech helps you achieve your goals. When you are President, giving a good speech can prevent you from achieving them.

via www.newyorker.com

Ezra Klein wrote an interesting piece in The New Yorker, "The Unpersuaded," about the work of George Edwards, the director of the Center for Presidential Studies, at Texas A. & M. University, outlining a strong argument that presidents--even those considered good communicators--have far less power to persuade with public speeches than many Americans realize.

Consider the following about presidents Clinton, Reagan, and Franklin Roosevelt:

Between his first inauguration, in January, 1993, and his first midterm election, in November, 1994, [Clinton] travelled to nearly two hundred cities and towns, and made more than two hundred appearances, to sell his Presidency, his legislative initiatives (notably his health-care bill), and his party. But his poll numbers fell, the health-care bill failed, and, in the next election, the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in more than forty years. Yet Clinton never gave up on the idea that all he needed was a few more speeches, or a slightly better message. “I’ve got to . . . spend more time communicating with the American people,” the President said in a 1994 interview. Edwards notes, “It seems never to have occurred to him or his staff that his basic strategy may have been inherently flawed.”
.....
Reagan succeeded in passing major provisions of his agenda, such as the 1981 tax cuts, but, Edwards wrote, “surveys of public opinion have found that support for regulatory programs and spending on health care, welfare, urban problems, education, environmental protection and aid to minorities”—all programs that the President opposed—“increased rather than decreased during Reagan’s tenure.” Meanwhile, “support for increased defense expenditures was decidedly lower at the end of his administration than at the beginning.” In other words, people were less persuaded by Reagan when he left office than they were when he took office.
.....
[P]olitical scientists Matthew Baum and Samuel Kernell...found that [FDR's fireside chats] fostered “less than a 1 percentage point increase” in his approval rating. His more traditional speeches didn’t do any better. He was unable to persuade Americans to enter the Second World War, for example, until Pearl Harbor.

In fact, Edwards' evidence suggest that many presidents achieve their policy goals most efficiently without publicly advocating for them. For a president to publicly address a policy goal, according to Edwards, is often to solidify partisan opposition against it. But it can also strengthen support  among the president's own party. Presidents' public persuasion attempts often have a politicizing effect--whether they like it or not.

Edwards:

“Barack Obama is only the latest in a long line of presidents who have not been able to transform the political landscape through their efforts at persuasion. When he succeeded in achieving major change, it was by mobilizing those predisposed to support him and driving legislation through Congress on a party-line vote.”

Of course, this is not to say that presidential attempts to persuade cannot effect the rhetorical landscape. Jeffery L. Bineham, a rhetoric professor at St. Cloud State University, notes in a letter to the editor of The New Yorker that "death tax," "wars" on poverty, drugs, terror, and mottos like "government is not the solution but the problem," are all examples of presidential speech entering the political lexicon.

We Have No Idea Who’s Right: Criticizing “he said, she said” journalism

PressThink.org has a very interesting post about a discussion generated by its author, Jay Rosen, concerning what he terms "he said, she said" journalism, which limits reporters' work to letting two or more opposing perspectives present evident (utter their soundbites) and then walking away; this journalism does not evaluate the evidence that sources present or are found to be relying on, when it has the resources to do so. Rosen:

“He said, she said” journalism means… #

• There’s a public dispute.
• The dispute makes news.
• No real attempt is made to assess clashing truth claims in the story, even though they are in some sense the reason for the story. (Under the “conflict makes news” test.)
• The means for assessment do exist, so it’s possible to exert a factual check on some of the claims, but for whatever reason the report declines to make use of them.
• The symmetry of two sides making opposite claims puts the reporter in the middle between polarized extremes.

via pressthink.org

A metaphor might be: "he said, she said" limits the reporter to setting the stage for a debate and moderating it, but not examining the evidence behind the debaters' claims, not seeking to confirm the veracity of claims.

As one commenter, Steve Buttry, noted, the first principle in the Society of Professional Journalists'  Code of Ethics is "Seek truth and report it." "He said, she said" journalism dispenses with the "seek truth" part; it changes journalism to "Find claim-makers and have them state their claims and in equal measure." That's it.

But, as other commenters imply, can any one story on a topic, such as the NPR three-minute segment that Rosen cites, be crititiqued apart of the overall reporting of a topic over time, which may require multiple reports (articles, segments, pieces, etc.; the terms vary by media) by the same journalist(s)? As NPR's omsbudman, Edward Schumacher-Matos, stated regarding the particular NPR segment the Rosen took exception to:

It was a simple daily story that did a sufficiently good job in pulling together the facts on what happened, with analytical commentary from different sides.

Is more needed? Of course. That’s why you have follow-up stories.

Hat-tip to MUG.

Starkey on UK riots: It’s not about criminality and cuts, it’s about culture... and this is only the beginning - Telegraph

Condemned as a racist for his comments on 'Newsnight' following the riots, the historian David Starkey speaks out against those who tried to silence him for confronting the gangster culture that has ruptured our society.

via www.telegraph.co.uk

From Starkey's article, where he also lashes back at Piers Morgan:

One of the most striking things about the England riots is where they did not happen: Yorkshire, the North East, Wales and Scotland. These areas contain some of the worst pockets of unemployment in the country. But they are also characterised by a powerful sense of regional or national identity and difference that cuts across all classes and binds them together. And it is this, I am sure, which has inoculated them against the disease of “gangsta” culture and its attendant, indiscriminate violence.
.....
Fortunately, there is a powerful narrative of freedom that runs like a golden thread through our history. “The air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe in,” counsel declared repeatedly in Somersett’s Case, about the legality of slavery in England, in 1772.

For the other pernicious legacy of the reaction to [Enoch] Powell['s 20 April 1968 "Rivers of Blood" speech about immigration] has been an enforced silence on the matter of race. The subject has become unmentionable, by whites at any rate. And any breach has been punished by ostracism and worse. As the hysterical reaction to my remarks shows, the witch-finders already have their sights on me, led by that pillar of probity and public rectitude, Piers Morgan, who called on Twitter for the ending of my television career within moments of the Newsnight broadcast.

From one reader comment:

I believe Mr. Starkey is right and the only way to reverse that trend is by...honestly voicing our opinions about race. I'm well aware that I'm creating a charter for ignorant racially-biased cretins to spew thinly-veiled hatred but I would much rather deal with that than have to continue to live in this mute and mutant condition we have endured for so long.

Another reader's observation:

There are moments when the Celtic/Saxon divide in British politics is manifest. The raging Scottish accent is a leit motif of militant unionism, and almost every Labour Party leader has been Scottish or otherwise [C]eltic.... The Conservatives do well in England, England is currently almost entirely blue,* but the [C]eltic fringe, and the immigrant populated inner cities, vote, as a population, for 'anyone but' the Tories.** There is not one single Scottish Tory MP.

More from The Coffee House, the blog of the British publication, The Spectator (est. 1828).

*the color of the Conservative Party
**the Conservative Party

Phone Hacking Scandal Widens: News International Targeted Gordon Brown, BSkyB Bid Delayed (LIVE UPDATES)

The phone hacking scandal widened on Monday, as new reports emerged that papers beyond the News of the World were also involved in criminal behavior. In addition, Rupert Murdoch's bid to take over BSkyB, the satellite broadcaster, looked to be in serious peril.

via www.huffingtonpost.com

New York State's law...globally

The story, "NY marriage vote emboldens Paris gay pride march," is the sort of strained reporting and sometimes underwhelming writing that I find the AP too often tolerates. The journalist writes, "Marchers, dressed in drag, brassieres or striped sailor outfits, paraded...." Not "Marchers, some dressed in...." All marchers are indicated, as if there are three authorized outfits to choose from.

What is more, the piece gives the reader inaccurate sense of the parade--or more precisely, it offers mere slices--the sartorial (prurient?)--actually of the reality as if it is highly representative of or even the entirety of the reality. This is abject intellectual dishonesty on the part of the journalist. Consider: just what is the newsworthiness of these 95 characters in such limited page space: "naked except for a glittery black jock strap, feathered high-heel boots and sequin-studded mask," especially when such outlandish customs at pride parades are the exception in reality but the (inaccurate) norm in the minds of most people in the world. (The "man bites dog" angle to such coverage would be that--gee, most parade participants are nondescriptly dressed!)

Also, awkward and recklessly connotative terms like "macho-dominated" cry out for definition, and in this instance, the use of the term also probably oversimplifies the situation in Russia, though, to be fair, journalists don't have the luxury of a high word-count allowance, and oversimplification is hard to avoid. But finally, the story is at heart a story about the rest of Europe, or more precisely, the rest of Europe beyond France, which is not suggested by the headline at all.

Nonetheless, the story does accomplish its main objective, to give a brief but not insubstantial view of awareness among progressives globally of New York State's new law.

The Road to Gay Marriage in New York

Over the last several weeks, dozens of lawmakers, strategists and advocates described the closed-door meetings and tactical decisions that led to approval of same-sex marriage in New York, about two years after it was rejected by the Legislature. This account is based on those interviews, most of which were granted on the condition of anonymity to describe conversations that were intended to be confidential.

via www.nytimes.com

Michael Barbero's amazingly well-executed reporting on Gov. Cuomo's brilliant tactical & strategic leaership on marriage equality. My years-old skepticism expressed last July about Cuomo are certainly more than allayed.

Witan Publishing offers epublishing service for medieval scholars

Witan Publishing, a new service to the medieval academic community, was launched yesterday. It aims to provide e-publishing of peer-reviewed scholarship in the field of medieval studies.

Witan’s goal is not merely to be another academic publisher, but is instead something much more ambitious: to change the way scholarly research is produced, distributed, and received. This new service will benefit scholars the most, freeing their work from the old market restrictions, distributing scholarship more widely, and putting texts within the budgets of even struggling graduate students.

via www.medievalists.net

'Le Batman Francais' finds a formidable foe in right-wing America

The American right has attacked the comic-book creators of Batman and Robin for introducing a "French Batman", who is "not French, but Muslim". The new superhero, introduced in DC Comics' Batman Annual 2011 last month, is called Nightrunner.

He is a 22-year-old French man of Algerian origin, who lives in Clichy-sous-Bois, the town north of Paris where the 2005 suburban riots began. His "real" name is supposed to be Bilal Asselah. After brushing with riots and crime in the multi-racial French banlieues as a teenager, he is chosen by Batman to become his French representative in the struggle against Evil. This is part of the Dark Knight's drive to build a crime-fighting network all over the globe – and a drive by DC Comics to franchise the lucrative Batman legend to other countries and cultures.
.....
French observers have been amused by the controversy but also rather startled by the portrait of France painted both by DC Comics and by the right-wing bloggers. The 2005 riots were not "Muslim riots" but involved young people of many races and backgrounds. A young man born in France of Algerian origin is, whatever [right-wing bloggers] Mr Green or Mr Todd may think, an "actual" or "genuine" Frenchman.

via www.independent.co.uk

The Civil War, 150 years later, still divides us; also: list of NPS commemorations

When National Park Service rangers fired a New Year's cannon shot at this Civil War battleground to hail the arrival of 2011, they also ushered in the start of a four-year commemoration of the war's 150th anniversary.

The events include a multitude of battle re-enactments, lecture series, readings, concerts and plays that will be held on the battle fields tended to by the Park Service and in private estates from the shores of the Gulf of Mexico to New York.

But the slate of commemorations is also fraught with political peril.

via aolnews.com

Laura Parker, in her article, "Civil War, 150 Years Later, Still Divides Our Nation," allowed her sources to set up the helpful contrast between "memory" and "history," and gave the article's conclusion over to a validly important source--not to herself--who expertly summarized what much of the preceding article demonstrated about memory and history about the Civil War. (There's an inset link in her article to a list of 2011's NPS Civil War commemoration events.)

Memory--in the sense used in Parker's article--is a narrative stongly rooted in collective memory. Comparatively, history is a more comprehensively evidence-based narrative founded more so on hard work by a larger number of historians aware of professional standards of historical evidence. (Which is not to say that amateur historians do not also contribute well-research work fully informed of professional standards of evidence.) Even though history is a humanity, it has standards of evidence because it has one foot in the sciences, drawing on fields such as archeology.

 

Solid historical narratives are less likely to downplay unanswered questions and ambiguities, but at the same time they are also strong narratives in the end because they reflect professional consensus based on mutually supportive findings. I dislike the fact that history--real history--is sometimes trumped in the marketplace of popular ideas and popular opinion by a trendy memory, especially one not merely skewed by politics--because history can never be completely divorced from politics--but one one largely in the service of politics, often the politics of ethnicity or regionalism.

 

It will be interesting to see if the compelling production values or storytelling of some filmmaker or cable network or channel is brought to bear on the topic of the Civil War during the 150th anniversary years in such a way as to downplay the importance of slavery as a cause of the Civil War or over-emphasize the states' rights issue...which, if one is intellectually honest, boils down to the right of a state to . . . permit slavery.

 

After all, it was done so expertly once before by D. W. Griffith in The Birth of a Nation.

21st-century moment

Story here.