About two weeks ago, Kevin Drum noted an interesting observation from Mark Hertsgaard about an effective political opposition to Bush in his second term.
“History doesn’t give us much evidence [of the press being tougher on a president in his second term],” says author Mark Hertsgaard. “Look at the Reagan era. The media certainly didn’t get tougher in his second term.”
….”I think that basically press coverage of any president is only as critical as the opposition party is critical,” says Hertsgaard, who also wrote about the media and Reagan for The Nation shortly after the ex-president died in June.
I think this is largely right, but only offers a hint of how to proceed.
In the context of opposing Bush, this means constant Dem assertiveness is necessary so that the media is, in turn, more aggressive. Or, as Drum put it, “If Democrats want coverage of Bush to be more critical, they’re the ones who are going to have to feed consistent, ongoing critical coverage to the media.” True, but there’s a catch.
Reporters, God love ’em, are sometimes painfully lazy. I’ve worked with political journalists for years and I’ve seen first-hand how one really has to gift wrap interesting stories for them (unless it involves sex) before they’ll pursue it with any real enthusiasm.
The trick, as I see it, is in the mechanics. What, literally, should Dems do to help drive negative coverage of Bush’s failings? More press releases? Websites? Year-round TV advertising? Press conferences? Introduce more bills that won’t be considered?
It’s not enough to say Dems should be aggressive. Aggressive how? Through which means? Fortunately, the Dems seem to be getting more creative.
I remember an interesting press conference on the Hill in July 2003. Carl Levin and Ted Kennedy prepared a devastating presentation on the White House’s pre-war claims regarding Iraq. Their staffs had done a lot of work and tried valiantly to drum up media interest in a story that, at the time, wasn’t generating a lot of attention in the press.
Holding the press conference, however, wasn’t enough. Few reporters showed up and the event generated exactly zero stories in the major dailies. The problem wasn’t that Dems weren’t mounting much of an opposition; it was that reporters weren’t paying much attention to what Dems had to say. If senators hold an important press conference and no one shows up, it doesn’t really happen.
It’s why I’m fond of imaginative stunts like these.
Democratic Representative John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, ranking Minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, will hold a hearing on Wednesday 08 December 2004 to investigate allegations of vote fraud and irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential election. The hearing is slated to begin at 10:00 a.m. EST in the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington DC.
Democratic Representatives Melvin Watt and Robert Scott will also be centrally involved with the hearing. Rev. Jesse Jackson will be in attendance, along with Ralph Neas (President, People for the American Way), Jon Greenbaum (Director, Voting Rights Project, Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights Under Law), Ellie Smeal (Executive Director, The Feminist Majority), Bob Fitrakis ( The Free Press), Cliff Arnebeck (Arnebeck Associates), John Bonifaz (General Counsel, National Voting Institute), Steve Rosenfeld (Producer, Air America Radio), and Shawnta Walcott (Communications Director, Zogby International). Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell has been invited to attend.
Wait a minute, you’re thinking. How can Dems hold a hearing without GOP approval? They can’t, which is why this isn’t an actual congressional hearing.
The term ‘hearing’ is technically not accurate in this matter, as Conyers and his fellow Representatives will be holding this forum without the blessing of the Republican Majority leader of the Judiciary Committee. Staffers from the Minority office at the Judiciary Committee describe the event as a ‘Members Briefing.’ That having been said, this event will be a hearing by every meaningful definition of the word. Expert testimony will be offered, and a good deal of data on potential fraud previously unreported to the public will be discussed and examined at length.
This is political theater — which, in this case, is a good thing. If Conyers got this gang together for yet another press conference at the House Triangle, featuring a dozen speeches, in December no less, reporters wouldn’t go. But an opposition hearing, with angry lawmakers, knowledgeable witnesses, and provocative testimony is…something different. Whether one agrees with the substance of the concerns or not, this is the kind of tactic that Dems haven’t tried before.
I don’t know if reporters will show up for these “hearings” or not, but it’s great to see Dems thinking outside the box.