SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (11378)10/8/2003 5:24:21 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793689
 
How did the media play the recall? In Davis's favor? Naaah, that couldn't happen, could it? :>)
__________________________________________

October 08, 2003, 8:47 a.m.
Schwarzeneggernaut
The national media gave him a licking, but he kept on ticking.

By Tim Graham — director of media analysis at the Media Research Center. "NRO"

The sum-up headline for the California recall could be "Schwarzenegger Wins, Media Lose." Despite the overt favoritism of national media outlets for the Democratic candidates, complete with all kinds of loose, unsubstantiated last-minute Arnold "scoops" from 1975, the people of California threw out Gray Davis along with all the lobbying by Dan, Tom, and Peter. Now that's it's all over, here's a brief overview of the last two months of national coverage.

TARGET: PREDATOR
Arnold was the most scrutinized candidate. Despite the fact that the recall petition suggested great dissatisfaction with the governance of Gray Davis, a celebrity-obsessed national media — which also felt that Schwarzenegger was the immediate front-runner — focused almost all of their critical scrutiny, with named and unnamed sources, on the movie star.

This became especially amazing with the outbreak of groping allegations on Thursday of last week. By the weekend, Arnold was granting interviews to network-news anchors, who are not in the habit these days of interviewing governors or gubernatorial candidates. The anchors were remarkably unfair in their questioning, especially in light of the dramatically different standard for sexual scrutiny they set for President Clinton in the last century. Peter Jennings asked: "It cannot be easy to spend the last few days of this campaign having to deal constantly with being called a serial groper or a serial abuser of women and...your admiration for Hitler. Is that tough?"

What Arnold didn't know before answering is that a Nexis search didn't find the words "serial groper" or "serial abuser of women" in the archive of ABC News transcripts at any time during the Clinton years. That would include the occasions on which Jennings interviewed Bill Clinton. Perhaps at that time the thought occurred to him that bringing up the allegations isn't what the accused "serial groper" wants to discuss.

NBC's Tom Brokaw lectured: "A lot of these women have made very specific accusations about grabbing them sexually and making lewd suggestions. You described it as playful and rowdy and the kind of mischief that you engaged in when you were a younger man. But based on their descriptions, in many states, what you did would be criminal, it would be a sexual assault of some kind."

This exchange marks a glaring and dramatic political bias, since in 1999, far from any Election Day, Brokaw refused to run a story on NBC's Nightly News about Juanita Broaddrick. President Clinton was never required to provide any specific answers about those allegations. The only bone Brokaw would throw was a brief, very euphemistic plug of the emotional interview Broaddrick gave Lisa Myers for Dateline. This is what Brokaw said, in its entirety, at the very end of the February 24, 1999 Nightly News: "Tonight on Dateline NBC Lisa Myers with an exclusive interview with the woman known as Jane Doe No. 5, Juanita Broaddrick. Her controversial accusations about President Clinton. Dateline tonight at 8, 7 Central." The words "rape" or "sexual assault" or even "criminal" behavior were nowhere to be heard.

TOM THE CON
Tom McClintock was the most labeled candidate. Even though the national networks and newsmagazines gave Arianna Huffington (at about one-fifth of McClintock's polling number when she dropped out) more interviews and news coverage, nearly every report I saw on McClintock made it seem like he had three first names: "Conservative Republican Tom McClintock." For spice, they might change it to "Conservative State Senator Tom McClintock" or "Stalwart Conservative Tom McClintock." In the end, this is great labeling for building a conservative constituency for McClintock. But it's ridiculous in news coverage that had no labels for Arnold — and especially in comparison to unlabeled Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamante, whose liberalism is on most matters the polar opposite of McClintock's positions.

FEELING FOR GRAY
Gray Davis was the most sympathetic candidate. The national media audience almost never heard about state issues, about the dramatic increases in government taxing and spending that drove the recall. The Cato Institute governor-watchers gave Gray Davis an "F" grade last year. He had "become one of the biggest spending governors in California history." Spending went up 13 percent in 1999-2000, and then rose another 14 percent in 2001-2002. Davis bungled the state's energy crisis by locking in electricity prices at two to three times the market price. The bond rating has been downgraded twice in his tenure. The networks cemented their image for focusing on cash, flash, and unproven tabloid trash instead of those boring issues that voters focus on.

Even as Davis pounded away at Schwarzenegger as a closet Nazi and a potentially criminal sexual offender, he still was offered mild questions. On Monday, NBC's Campbell Brown threw wiffle balls such as: "Can you state, unequivocally, that no one in your campaign, no one in the Democratic party, that you're aware of, is behind these stories?" And: "Schwarzenegger also told Tom Brokaw, in this interview, that he would not respond to specific allegations until after the election. What do you think about that?"

Perhaps more jaw-dropping was ABC's Brian Rooney on Friday morning pushing Davis to get harsher with Schwarzenegger: "He denied some of it, admitted some of it and apologized. He may have admitted some things that are a criminal offense — it's sexual assault." When Davis suggested they wait for more proof, Rooney insisted: "Back in August, Schwarzenegger's campaign chief told the Sacramento Bee that this is not a position election, this is a character election. If they established it as a character race, why not meet them on those terms?" This, from the networks who spent 1996 decrying any whisper of a "character issue."

BUSTAWHERE?

Cruz Bustamante was the most invisible frontrunner. Even in the weeks that he was touted as leading the race, the networks spent very little time reviewing the positions or statements of Bustamante, including his gaffe of using the "N" word at a 2001 trade-union event, or his ties to the bizarre Chicano-separatist group the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). Neither ABC nor NBC mentioned Bustamante's MEChA ties, even though both interviewed him at length. When CBS's Bob Schieffer and Los Angeles Times reporter Doyle McManus grilled Bustamante on the August 31 Face the Nation, they also skipped MEChA, inviting him instead to pile on second-place GOP candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger for his raunchy comments in a 1977 issue of the pornographic magazine Oui. Even as he lagged behind Bustamante, he was still the only candidate the media elite felt like scrutinizing.

Now that Gov. Schwarzenegger has been elected, let us all bow our heads and pray that we won't have another four years of Ventura-philia. Will Arnold buckle down with California's problems, or will he be turning up on Hardball town meetings every week and selling action figures? Our shameless media will no doubt continue their tendency to avoid every other governor in the country and fixate on the star in Sacramento. He may be all rehabilitated to star as the liberal media's favorite Republican at the 2004 GOP convention.
nationalreview.com



To: JohnM who wrote (11378)10/8/2003 7:37:12 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793689
 
I was afraid that the Spanish vote was going to "Block vote" like the black vote did, and doom California to continuing it's problems. But at least one half of it is up for grabs with the right kind of issues and candidates. But this election would force a "pro" to write off the black vote in California if he is pushing a Republican candidate. If you can't get to them against Davis, "Forgeddaboutit!"
________________________________________________

Minority Report

California Latinos confound predictions
Matt Welch - REASON

The oxygen went out of Gray Davis' election-night party at approximately 8:02 p.m. yesterday, when news of the networks calling a landslide victory for Arnold Schwarzenegger circulated around the Biltmore Hotel's ballroom and bar. More than an hour later, around 60 Democratic politicians, including Jesse Jackson, the Davis family, and elderly Latino women wearing United Farm Workers shirts, crammed onstage for the concession speech.

"Now this," said California Democratic Party Chair Art Torres, surveying the rainbow coalition on either side of the podium, "is California!"

Every Golden State politician knows what Torres meant, though almost none make it a central part of their stump speech. California politics, 154 years after Anglos first came to power, is still largely ethnic. The Democrats count on overwhelming support from the black and Latino "communities" (as they are euphemistically called by both parties); the Republicans tie themselves in knots trying to "reach out" to people who have historical reasons for not feeling comfortable in the GOP.

Republican dreams and Democratic nightmares notwithstanding, the one true storyline of yesterday's vote was that Californians rejected a single specific politician whom they have grown to detest. But a key subplot, and one that could potentially have national implications, is that the Latino vote might now truly be up for grabs.

Cruz Bustamante would have been the first Latino governor in modern California history. Arnold Schwarzenegger voted for Proposition 187, the popular anti-illegal immigration initiative that drove a generation of Latino voters into the Democratic camp, and drafted 187-champion Pete Wilson to chair his campaign. In the Democratic Party's downtown Los Angeles headquarters, where I watched the bowling-ball shaped Lt. governor fumble in Spanish on cold-calls to voters this Sunday, there is a poster of Arnold's body with Wilson's head photo-shopped on it, saying "I'm back!! This time I'll finish the job. Hasta la vista, democracy!"

The scare campaign did not work. Exit polls showed that Schwarzenegger got 30 percent of California's Latino vote, more than any Republican candidate in a decade. Bustamante received just 52 percent, a whopping 13 points less than the reviled Davis won in November 2002. CNN reported that Bustamante actually did better among blacks—64 percent—than Latinos.

Yet at the same time, Latino enthusiasm for Bustamante may have dealt a fatal blow to Gray Davis. Nearly half of Hispanic voters, who made up 18 percent of the electorate overall, voted yes on the recall; if they would have voted like Democrats (who were nearly 80 percent against), the 55-45 recall result would have been more like 51-49, and we would be talking for the next several weeks about endless court challenges.

Both major parties will be dissecting these results for years to come. George Bush and Karl Rove, since long before they reached the White House, have subscribed to the theory that the future of the Republican Party in the Sun Belt depends on Latino-friendly policies, and (in California, at least) social moderation. As governor of Texas, Bush criticized Proposition 187, and rejected the kind of English-only initiatives that Arnold Schwarzenegger has backed. As a presidential candidate, he campaigned heavily in California, promising to reform the Immigration and Naturalization Service and cut a new migration deal with his good pal Vicente Fox. And as president, he drafted the moderate Los Angeleno Richard Riordan to run for governor in 2002. But until yesterday, the most striking thing about Bush's Southwestern Strategy has been its utter failure at the ballot box.

On the Democratic side, last night's lukewarm Latino showing should provide a long-overdue wake-up call. Since receiving the electoral gift of Proposition 187, Art Torres' party has reflexively attempted to paint any number of reasonable initiatives as Pete Wilson's evil spawn. Democrats and Bustamante cried bloody murder at the repeal of bilingual education, despite broad Latino support for having kids learn in English, and painted opponents of the drivers-licenses-for-illegal-immigrants law as knuckle-draggers. By confusing tolerance with caving in to activists, and by blatantly reversing himself on a drivers license bill opposed by two-thirds of the population, Davis may have pandered himself out of some Latino support.

"Davis repeated a mistake many analysts have made during the recall campaign," political analyst Gregory Rodriguez wrote in the Oct. 5 Los Angeles Times. "He distilled the burgeoning and diversifying Latino electorate of 2.3 million into a lump of uniformity.

Schwarzenegger and the Republicans also suffer from the disease of treating Latinos like a monolithic bloc. On Friday, when the Governator-elect was asked by a Hispanic businessman in Santa Clarita just how exactly he was reaching out to Latino voters, Arnold said: "I'm a big fan of Latino families... I love their workmanship," and then talked about how much fun he had shooting four movies in Mexico.

It is possible that the unpredicted split in the Latino vote yesterday can mostly be attributed to the Schwarzenegger's star power, and that tomorrow's elections in California will more closely hew to old patterns. But today, at least, it looks like the fastest-growing segment of the population has finally started to become the swing vote that George Bush imagined it could be.

"Perhaps the one worthwhile lesson of this recall," Rodriguez wrote, "will be that Latinos should be seen for what they are rather than what the political class wishes them to be."

Matt Welch is a Reason associate editor.

reason.com



To: JohnM who wrote (11378)10/8/2003 7:59:39 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793689
 
Open Excess

Federal judges perform miracle, make broadband policy worse

Jeff Taylor REASON

Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit took one very long look at the Federal Communications Commission's policy on broadband providers and couldn't make heads or tails out of it. Having one set of rules for telephone companies who sell broadband and another set of rules for cable companies who sell broadband is not fair, the court found. Cable providers should have to labor under the same open access requirements that the phone guys are stuck with.

And with that the court applied impeccable, deadly logic to the most illogical of regulatory realms. As a result, real honest-to-goodness competition between giant communication conglomerates may grind to a halt and the rollout of new—and potentially much cheaper—technologies like voice over Internet protocol may be stalled.

The court essentially bought the argument that without an FCC-enforced open access requirement the cable companies would lock consumers into services they did not want. (Never mind that so-called "consumer groups" who agitated for open access regs do not want to pitch the one thing that hands captive consumers over to cable companies—exclusive cable franchise agreements with localities.)

The idea that the cable industry—or the phone guys for that matter—want to control or "wall off" the online world is some dark fantasy. No cable exec schemes to sell a shell account to every Tom, Dick, and Linus with a kernel to grep. The big money lies elsewhere; hence, niche markets will always survive.

Cable guys want to do what they have always done, charge as much as possible for the programming they shove down the pipe to your home. If the pipe is bigger and it is possible to charge by the program rather than by the month, all the better. Everybody's welcome. In fact, many consumers might prefer a la carte pricing for programming and services.

A greater range of services might follow as well. The recent history of pay-per-view offerings is not one of restraint. Mike Tyson, Howard Stern, soft-core porn, and even crappy football teams enjoy the embrace of quad-shielded coax. Exactly what demand is going to go unfulfilled as the pipe widens and PPV and video on-demand tech expands is a mystery.

In fact, the bigger pipe and the use of new technology brought us the open access issue in the first place. Cable could have just said no thanks to piggybacking Net service on top of traditional TV offerings. But it didn't because consumers wanted Net service. So much for walling them off. That desire for high speed Net, in turn, helped fulfill FCC's fervent wish that the phone guys and the cable guys would compete against each other. Such competition has one sure winner: consumers.

You can really feel for FCC wonks in the wake of this decision. Here they are with a tidy little competition going on and here come the courts to foul it up. Of course, the lack of any open access mandate for cable guys looks unfair when the phone guys have one. But in the big picture the FCC knows that the phones guys already hold all the best cards, the ace being they already operate as telephone common-carriers.

The phone companies would dearly love for every wired service under the sun to be found to be an Official Telephone Service, with all the heavy regulation that entails. That would mean the future of broadband would be hashed out under phone company house rules.

The FCC knows that would tilt things too far in the direction of phone guys, but is handcuffed by its own definitions. Wires either carry telephone service or information service. But today's bits do not subscribe to this false dichotomy.

The reason the regulatory state is flummoxed by the digital world is because digital delivers cheap multi-function tools to the masses to do with what they will. Single-purpose appliances are easy to regulate. You may not operate an iron smelter in your yard. A radio transmitter must be licensed by federal authorities. Telephone service providers must provide for 911 service, collect universal service fees, and subsidize politically favored groups, like rural populations and residential service.

However, the world has changed. New devices make a mess of the old rules. No cameras allowed. Oh, your phone is a camera. No phones allowed, then. Except phone phones.

The FCC or the courts cannot bring the old world back by fiat. What they can do is be disgusted by clumsy, ancient regulations. Welcome to the club.

reason.com