A voice without a forum doesn’t mean much

January 17, 2006

Responding to the limited media interest in Al Gore’s remarks yesterday, Atrios raised a point yesterday that got me thinking.

I’m not going to claim that CNN was obligated to carry a speech by a former vice president currently not directly involved in politics. But I do think responsible news organizations should ask themselves if there’s actually any way that a prominent Democrat could get a full speech aired live on their networks, especially given the fact that they’ve run Bush’s stock speech in full about 700 times.

I remember when CNN used to run Newt Gingrich’s morning press conferences every day. That didn’t seem too unreasonable to me, actually, fair-minded person that I am. And, yes, Gingrich was in the majority at the time. But is there no way for the minority to ever have a few moments to get their message out?

It’s a good question and points to one of the principal problems with the Dems’ message machine.

Most political observers, particularly on the left, have lamented Democrats’ problems with crafting and disseminating a consistent message that appeals to voters. To be sure, some of the difficulties are internal — the party has been slow to appreciate the significance of message discipline, coordination, timing, etc.

But regardless of how justified that criticism is, part of the problem is a simple inability to share a message with a broad audience. Any gathering of Dems will inevitably reach a point in which a frustrated activist says, “Why aren’t we out there saying (pick message) about (pick issue)?” In fact, Dems are often doing just that, but frequently no one hears them.

To be fair, I’ll concede that reporters tend to follow Howard Dean around. However, it’s not because they’re anxious to hear the DNC’s perspective; it’s because they expect him to say something controversial that will ultimately make for an interesting story. In terms of offering Dems an outlet, this doesn’t really count — when Dean gives a straightforward speech, it’s dog-bites-man and reporters tend not to care.

Another obvious facet to the problem is that Dems don’t control any branch of government. Dems have trouble getting their message out because they’re not in the majority; and they’re not in the majority because they have trouble getting their message out.

Which is why Atrios’ question rings true. The Dems have institutional problems that can be fixed, but overcoming media disinterest is a challenge for which there is no easy answer. Does anyone have any ideas?

You’re right. And it goes deep. Even during the 2004 elections, I would be reading pundits talking about what Kerry SHOULD say. And then I would find the texts of speeches in which Kerry was already saying just that. His speeches just didn’t get the coverage they deserved. One aspect of it anyway.

  • Well CB as you pointed out in the adjacent post The White House seems anxious to appoint Gore the offical spokes-robot for Dems. If the answer to all questions from the Press Corps is Al Gore this or Howard Dean that it will bring Dems into the light as reporters cover the back and forth. (Gasp! Reporters doing their jobs!)

  • Yeah, I have one. Let’s have billionaire and Democrat supporter George Soros buy up one of the news outlets, say MSNBC, and stock it full of left-leaning talking heads. Then the Dems will have their own propoganda machine where they can air speeches by Dems at their leisure and get their spin and talking points out ad naseum.

    The true benefit of course being that it will only amp up the competition at Fox and over time, both outlets would become the obvious propoganda machines that they are and (hopefully) both would alienate the American people to an such an extent that both would become non-factors.

    One of the things that really irks me is that Democrats have allowed the GOP spin machine to brand them. Dems are the ‘raise taxes’ party. They are the ‘no ideas’ party. Dems need MSOROSNBC to exist so that they can re-brand the GOP as the ‘warmonger party’, the ‘hate party’, the ‘deficit party’ and the ‘big government party’.

    C’mon Soros…. you’ve got a couple hundred million stashed away somewhere, don’t ya??

  • Well, in journalism school, they teach you to write the opening paragraph (known as the “lede”) in a manner that grabs the readers and invites them in to read the rest of the story.

    The lede — while concise, accurate and conveying the essense of the article — should be dramatic, interesting and different in order to make its mark upon the eye and the reader’s thoughts. Stories, like speech and a variety of other media, live in a cluttered world where competition for attention is tough.

    “Speechifying” is no different. If Al’s opening sentences (rather than later in the speech) would have mentioned the current president militantly breaking the law and deserving punishment, I guarantee you a bunch of reporters’ ears would have perked up and media disinterest would have vanished in a nano-second.

    Would this have changed the essense of Al’s speech? I don’t think so. But it would have dramatically altered the listener’s perceptions and instantly piqued their interest. That’s the deal with Howard Dean. He’s gets their attention quickly with something that “sounds” dangerous and controversial, then delivers the “meat” to drive the what-really-isn’t-controversial opening statements home. Then, ta-da, you have media coverage!

    BTW, I thought Al’s speech was brilliantly written.

  • The funny thing is, the laughable response from the White House has actually brought Gore’s speech into the open. The White House would probably serve itself well to remember that, no matter how they spin it, Gore got more votes.

    Thanks to the taint McCllelan and his idiotic verbal diarrhea, Gore’s speech made several headlines today.

  • I knew this was going to happen. Gore makes a great speech, then disappears from the public view. If he wants more visibility, he needs to speak out more, in forums which reach a wider audience. One time shots just ain’t going to do it. He needs to go on Larry King, the Jon Stewart show, CNN with Wolf Blitzer, C-Span’s Washington Journal. He needs to write an editorial to the New York Times. He need to make himself heard in as any places as possible. Winning back democracy isn’t a one-shot deal – it is a campaign.

  • WTF??? Ive been looking on the NYtimes site, and cant find jack on this speech. They have a whole article on the homepage about the moronic Trent Lott’s intentions of running again, yet on the home page, under National, and under Washington, NOTHING! I hope to hell they are gearing up for a good article on this, because if they dissed it this badly, it’s shameful. Im starting to think something fishy is going on there, because they are missing some pretty serious stuff lately. Like with CAP and Alito…buried. This is just not right.

  • Which is why Atrios’ question rings true. The Dems have institutional problems that can be fixed, but overcoming media disinterest is a challenge for which there is no easy answer. Does anyone have any ideas?

    Yes, I do. Do what the Republicans did in 1994 with the “Contract with America”: The Democrats should package their ideas and reforms for fixing our broken country and give it a name and sell the hell of it! The press would cover it as a counter-revolution.

    How does “A New Deal for a New Century” sound?

  • … and sell the hell of it! should read “and sell the hell out of it!”

    Ironically, I caught CB making the same mistake earlier today. Must be a Karma thing.

  • Which part of the media are we discussing here? There is a world of difference between reporters, who allegedly lean liberal, and the editors and producers who lean conservative, and most importantly control content. The (un)balance between conservative and liberal commentors on the Sunday morning talk shows should make it clear that Democrats are being suppressed by design. If it wasn’t for the Internets I don’t think that we would have a voice at all.

    slip kid no more – I dig your slogan.

  • As much as I like Gore’s speech, he’s not really saying anything much different than what a lot of other people are saying and getting at least some coverage about. And Bush has always adopted a kind of ‘sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me’ attitude about negative rhetoric anyway.

    What’s needed now is not more speeches but lawsuits and votes for Democratic candidates in November who will bring back the rule of law to this country.

    The ACLU and another group have gotten the first part started, getting the whole wiretapping issue into the courts. The next part is up to us.

    If you think Gore’s speech is so great (and it is), print copies of it and leave stacks of them in your local shopping malls, laundromats and coffee shops. Don’t depend on the media to do your job for you.

    Start a discussion group/organizing committee with your neighbors to locate and deliver every progressive vote in your area, wherever you happen to be.

    Show up at your local Congressperson’s town hall meetings and ask pointed questions, expressing approval or disapproval of their positions as appropriate. Make your voices heard!

    We are not powerless, people! We don’t need to wait for somebody with a fancy haircut to tell us what to do or when to act. All we have to do is stand up on our back legs and declare with a mighty shout that we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore!!

    Make this the day you resolve to stop wringing your hands and get cracking out there!!

  • Thanks Slip Kid – you reinforce my point. One article is about the WH, calling Gore a hypocrite, the other is about the ACLU, with practically no mention of Gore. You would think that the opinion of a person who was essentially elected as our President 5+ years ago is one that might be worth listening to, and one that should get better coverage. I do agree that he needs to follow it up with more interviews. Get goin Gore, geez! You only get this chance once!

  • Gore’s forum is that he’s been right – and Bush has been wrong – about a whole host of issues.

    All the polls seem to indicate that if he wasn’t a lame duck already, Bush would be vulnerable to someone like Al Gore, who, I suspect a stong majority would trade for Bush in a heartbeat.

  • It is true that Democrats do not control any branch of the federal government, and that contributes to the difficulty of commanding media attention.

    It is also true, and relevant, that Democrats-liberals-progressives do not control any important media outlet — not Fox News, certainly, but not CNN or MSNBC, either; not the Chicago Tribune or Washington Times, of course, but not the L.A. Times or the Washington Post or, even, the New York Times. Ditto for CBS, ABC, NBC, and — dare I say it — PBS. Clear Channel, Sinclair Broadcasting . . .

    Liberal and progressive voices are limited to the struggling Air America, a few boutique journals, and a handful of newspaper columns, where they are outnumbered by conservative and reactionary voices, and where they are under constant fire. It is telling that it is Krugman, and not Safire, who is forced to make corrections, on the pages of the New York Times; it is significant that the Washington Post ombudsman slanders Democratic Senators and promises Republican readers new developments.

    Media consolidation was a Republican policy. The takeover at PBS was a Republican policy. The Democrats have to be ready with a media policy of their own, against the day when Republican corruption and incompetence might return the Democrats to power. Any Democratic sojurn in power will be very short, if Democrats do not do something radical and sweeping to reform the news media.

  • I think the problem is with the Dems. They
    have no message, no agenda, nothing to offer
    the American people except Bush lite and
    “together we can do better,” meaning, I guess,
    that the Repubs are already doing pretty
    well. How pathetic can the Dems be?

    Al Gore gave a blockbuster speech, one of
    several in a recent series. Where the hell
    have the Dems been? Why aren’t they
    rallying around his message? They ignore
    the guy more than the MSM does.

    The Dems have, with little exception, nothing
    to say and nothing to offer, and they make
    that perfectly clear with their deafening silence
    on the important issues of our time.

    I won’t take up any more space because I know
    I’m a minority of one on this.

  • I have an idea. Forget principles and just do as the Republicans.

    Make “unofficial” charges that Bush is a homosexual, fathered a black child out of wedlock, cheats on Laura with an underage girl, cheats on Laura with and underage boy, is linked to al queda (according to his own vice president), stole a fighter aircraft for his own personal use when in the Texas Air Guard, conducts satanic rituals in the oval office, kidnapped Jon Benet Ramsey, watches recorded soap operas late at night, has AIDS, calls Laura “Bimbo” behind her back, may have had sex with a goat in college, breaks in line, definitely had sex with a goat during a recent trip abroad, endorses slavery, knows the whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa, Judge Crater and Elvis, has an autographed copy of “Mein Kampf,” drives a Volvo on the Crawford ranch, has an imaginary friend he calls “Laura,” fishes without a license, chug-a-lugs rum & coke, and was spotted by at least twelve witnesses on the grassy knoll in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.

  • at least twelve witnesses on the grassy knoll in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963

    George Herbert Walker Bush was in Dallas the day JFK was shot and “doesn’t remember” where he was at the time(where in Dallas, that is). Who could forget something like that?

  • Carpetbagger wrote:

    The Dems have institutional problems that can be fixed, but overcoming media disinterest is a challenge for which there is no easy answer. Does anyone have any ideas?

    That’s very true. This is a great question, too. I’m going to forego the wisecracks I’m thinking of here, and just suggest a couple of the general things.

    1) The most obvious thing is, the Dems could just find themselves wherever the media is paying attention, and be the first on-hand to comment + steal the show.

    I seriously, seriously mean this one– yeah, if the media’s out at Katrina Devastation Aftermath for a while, the Dems should be there. Or, they should be holding press conferences.

    But if the media is at big sporting events or at parties w/ movie stars, it doesn’t hurt the Dems at all to be seen there having a great time, too, I think.

    2) Second, the Dems should reinforce each other. I think the Dems could pull off being much more assertive if they all had each others’ backs. If six Dem senators are all on TV this week and they’re all talking really tough and saying pretty much the same thing, it sounds much more credible and makes Dems more comfortable with the habit of speaking up than if it’s one Dem going it alone. Otherwise, I think Dems have a tendency to be waaaaay too diplomatic, on balance. And yes, I’m talking about rising to the level of being “shrill” (although it’s unfortunate that the word has become common coin, and we’s do better if we stopped using it).

    More abstractly, Dems can just look to what the GOP did to rise to prominence in the discourse, to try to divine out some basic principles for taking back a bigger portion of the discourse. Granted, the Dems now are not the same thing as the GOP in the ’80s, so they have to think of what the differences are and how they might effect how you want to tailor your strategy and message.

    There’s a hell of a lot more I could write about this, but that’s the major stuff, I think. Dems need to focus on what they can do with their people who are in office, too, because a public official can get more headlines. Dems need to be seen offering some kind of dynamic agenda with a broad appeal and they need to look enthusiastic about it and dedicated to it. Then, they use that project as sort of a continuing font they can dip into so as to be seen doing really visible things as steps towards advancing that agenda. For examples, a public appearance with a supportive celebrity, or on a TV talk show, to promote the project.

    They basically just have to consciously embrace ‘overcoming media disinterest’ as an objective and take some steps.

  • Swan’s got it exactly right. The Dem’s may not get much coverage, but they do get some. And every time they do they need to reinforce each other. Gore gave a great speech and it may not have gotten overwhelming coverage, but it got some and the lit a fire under the opposition. Every democrat needs to be ready to hit those key points every chance they get until people realize it defines the “Democratic position”.

  • Here you go;

    1. Completely and without exception, accept the fact that we lost the election in 2000 and in 20004.

    2. Accept, without excuse, that we are the minority in American politics.

    3. Know in your heart that we have the best interests of America always in mind.

    4. Stop accepting Democratic menadacity! Start a fire under their scared, pinched up asses and ask them what it is they’re afraid of!

    5. Get rid of the ‘old guard’ Democrats. They still act like they’re in the majority (e.g. Sen. Ted Kennedy).

    6. Campaign for the future! This seems obvious, but remember that the republican party has been planning for these days for a very long time. It is very important for this country that we never, never, NEVER let this happen again.

    That’s the best my drunken ass can do!

  • So instead of letting them brand the Dems, why not brand them as the chickenshit party who can’t even find the guts to punish one of their own. They talk about kids suffering from a lack of parenting and discipline, when they’re setting the example right there by letting their worst get away with so much bullshit it’s completely irresponsible. They have no discipline at all, none of them.

  • Democrats need to do some outlandish things. Reid demonstrated this with his parliamentary trick a month or so ago and it got huge media attention. Next, fillibuster Alito, hopefully triggering the nuclear option. Huge media attention for a while and energizes the base. Safe Dem Congresscritters like Kennedy can then start making outrageous claims based on some sort of fact, like George Bush is a traitor and then talk about the NSA spying issue. It doesn’t matter if he is a traitor or not, you can explian it away as rhetoric to get attention and it wil get attention. Publicity is what we need.

  • Well actually there is a fix to that – a quick, timely, effective fix.

    And the Neo-con, G.O.P pers just make it more possible to do.

    Buy ownership of media. That’s what the fascist white-wing has done.

    • Comments are closed.