Media ponders Giuliani’s ‘eccentricities’

There was a striking exchange on Meet the Press yesterday between Tim Russert and Ted Koppel about Rudy Giuliani’s strength as a presidential candidate. It was one of those discussions that we’ll want to hold on to as the campaign progresses.

Russert had just finished noting that, as mayor, Giuliani was a staunch opponent of the NRA. Now, he’s emphasizing his support for the 2nd Amendment, and showing up at the NRA’s national convention. Russert and Koppel, though they avoided use of the dreaded “flip flop” phrase, agreed that Mayor Giuliani bears little resemblance to Candidate Giuliani. It led to this:

RUSSERT: What do we do as journalists to try to cut through this?

KOPPEL: The amazing thing is, you see story after story after story, especially from the New York press, which after all knows Rudy Giuliani pretty well from his years as mayor, and he’s not the most popular fellow in town. And he has certain eccentricities, shall we say, that the New York press has highlighted over the last few months. Doesn’t seem to be making a dent anywhere else in the country.

RUSSERT: Why?

KOPPEL: It beats the hell out of me.

Ooh! Call on me! I know this one!

It’s not “making a dent” because shows like Meet the Press aren’t actually telling the public about these “eccentricities.” Indeed, the fact that Russert and Koppel seem confused about this is quite disconcerting. If they want to “cut through this,” they have everything they need — the facts, the forum, air time to fill, and a public that needs information to make an informed decision.

“What do we do as journalists?” Here’s a radical idea: report on the stories.

Koppel’s right; NYC reporters have been doing some accurate, hard-hitting coverage of Giuliani’s mayoral tenure. They’ve treaded lightly over some of his personal eccentricities — his adulterous affairs, his multiple marriages, his estrangement from his children — but they’ve done a pretty good job of highlighting his record of not taking the terrorist threat seriously before 9/11, his deceptive claims about tax cuts, and his unabashedly progressive positions on hot-button social issues. Perhaps most importantly, a handful of outlets have actually pointed out that Giuliani’s record on 9/11 is not even close to what the candidate would like us to believe.

This would “make a dent” if television news outlets started talking about the revelations. But they don’t. Instead, as Meet the Press made clear yesterday, they casually allude to the fact that these revelations exist — without actually identifying any of them — and then marvel at the fact that people don’t know about them.

It was a 30-second example of what’s wrong with political journalism — one media celebrity talking to another media celebrity about why Americans don’t know about stories the media celebrities won’t put on the air.

Noting that there are ample stories that could undermine Giuliani’s narratives, if major outlets picked up on them, Matt Yglesias wrote:

This, it seemed to me, was an interesting topic for a national broadcast television show. Maybe these worthy panelists would inform their audience of these pieces of information known to New Yorkers, and resolve to bring this information to their audiences at Time, The Washington Post, NPR, CBN, and the various General Electric-owned media properties.

Sorry, just kidding. It didn’t occur to me for a minute that they would do this. And, indeed, they didn’t. Instead, they went meta and had a brief discussion of why it is that these accurate accounts of Giuliani’s record and personal behavior “don’t penetrate.” And, of course, they never considered the possibility that their own failure to report on these accurate portrayal’s of Giuliani’s record and personal behavior might play any role in it.

No, of course not. That would be responsible journalism. As Atrios concluded, “It’s always fascinating when our elite media gatekeepers pretend to not understand why certain stories don’t actually get through their gates.”

Does anyone seriously think these stories would not be all over the national news if Guiliani were a Democrat?

  • Wonder what Timmy will do when he has the Mayor of 9/11 in for a one-on-one chat…think he’ll put him on the spot with those pesky facts? Think he’ll let him get away with his usual talking points?

    These national media types get more and more useless with every passing day.

  • Does anyone seriously think these stories would not be all over the national news if Guiliani were a Democrat?

    Actually, if Rudy were a Democrat, the media would spend countless hours detailing all his personal failings — so much so that he would be laughed out of the race. Add in his numerous flip-flops, and the guy couldn’t get elected the head of his local PTA.

    But he’s a Republican, so his personal life is magically off limits to the media and flip flops aren’t part of his ideological wardrobe. Why I have no freakin’ idea …

  • I actually think it’s fine the media is not going hog wild over Rudy’s personal eccentricities. After all, they are not nearly as alarming as his “professional” eccentricities.

  • Maybe the press should do its job BEFORE the elections. What if by a fluke Giuliani’s elected and shows up in drag at the Inaugural Ball with a new mistress and only then do most of those who elected him learn of his “eccentricities”?

    I think ALL his bizarre behaviors should be revealed by the MSM, his philandering, marriages, his wavering stand on political issues, his bragging, his lies. These characteristics predict what he’d be like as a president. Giuliani appears to be a man without an integrated “center”, flitting like a butterfly from one course to another, never sticking to any principle.

  • I believe this is a controlled experiment.

    In a few months we will find out: “If a Giuliani falls in the jungle (seeing as how it’s NYC), and they don’t tell nobody, does it still affect the election?”

  • I am thinking more and more about a Hullaballoo piece the other day, where tristero postulated that the real reason the msm is so challenged is that they are simply afraid of the right. That would be the right that the media doesn’t describe as shrill and venal, and who are allowed airtime anytime they want it to present their calm and well reasoned arguments that never ever include personal attacks – which we understand are the hallmark of the vituperative left. If you saw the Olberman interview with the Vote Vets guy (and veteran) Brandon Friedman the other day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBYbWDGl0w, the interview includes some letters that Rush fans sent to Vote Vets following the phony soldier flap. There is reason to be afraid of these people.

    On the other hand, Rachel Maddow is a wonderful example of the shrill vituperative left the msm is all atwitter about. Amazing how consistently reasoned and clear and calm and factually on point she is, being shrill and all. Watch any Maddow video (such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJAWA4zywWA), then compare her to almost any spokesperson/pundit on the right. In fact, compare practically any progressive speaker with almost any right winger, you’ll see which group the msm needs to fear. And it ain’t us.

    I’m with tristero, the media simply ignores the rights excesses, aptly described by ex wingnut John Cole below, because they’ve been whipped by:

    “A bunch of bedwetting, loudmouth, corrupt, hypocritical, and incompetent boobs with a mean streak a mile long and no sense of fair play or proportion. Seriously- what does the current Republican party stand for? Permanent war, fear, the nanny state, big spending, torture, execution on demand, complete paranoia regarding the media, control over your body, denial of evolution and outright rejection of science, AND ZOMG THEY ARE GONNA MAKE US WEAR BURKHAS, all the while demanding that in order to be a good American I have to spend most of every damned day condemning half my fellow Americans as terrorist appeasers. ‘

  • It was a 30-second example of what’s wrong with political journalism — one media celebrity talking to another media celebrity about why Americans don’t know about stories the media celebrities won’t put on the air.

    Reminds me of the infamous moment when they claimed that they didn’t talk about the Downing Street memo because it was “old news”. And somehow it got to be old news when they hadn’t ever mentioned it.

    According to the memo, “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”

    “Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

    “the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections

    An excellent rundown of the overall media blackout on the DSM is here: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2612

    The blogs of course were screaming bloody murder about the leaked memo, and the MSM jackals knew that, so to them it was old news. But of course Joe Public never got to hear much of anything about the smoking gun proving conclusively that Bush had made up his mind to attack Iraq long before his phony “diplomatic efforts” had been played out.

    It also reminds me of the way that the MSM dosen’t do impeachment stories, because they are “uncomfortable conducting this line of questioning”. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23715

    The corporate media is the root of most of our problems. We still have 1/3 of Americans believing that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and the reason we do is as obvious as the smirk on Timmy’s fat face.

  • Sounds like Koppel’s got a touch of East-of-the-Hudson myopia — if it’s been reported in the press, how could anyone not know it?

  • we couldn’t be so lucky as to wait until Rudy Giuliani is actually the GOP nominee. ONLY then should we start disseminating those quirky professional and personal ‘eccentricities’. It’s better to inform the right wingers after the nomination is sealed. That way more of them will stay home.

    Wishful thinking?

  • *sigh*

    And yet there is a new Gallup poll showing

    Nearly half of Americans — including over three-quarters of Republicans — perceive the media as too liberal while fewer than one in five say the media are too conservative.

  • Zeitgeist, if enough money is spent saying the same thing over and over again, it becomes true.

    That’s how Velveeta™ became cheese.

  • What I am really surprised with is that Rudy’s competition has not brought these ‘eccentricities’ to light. It’s like there is an unspoken rule, the Reagan rule, not to speak ill of other R’s.

    Where is Karl when we need him, no, I did not just type that…

    I think the media elite is waiting until it gets interesting before they start reporting on something of substance, no way does Rudy make it 13 months w/o this hitting the ‘real’ media. Today we get cleavage and campaign attire.

  • Bruno @ 10, I’m having the same fantasies. Probably too good to be true, however.

  • The best of example of protecting Rudy is his blowing off of the Iraq Study Group to make millions in Speaking engagements.

    As an experiment, I ask friends and colleagues who are generally informed (though not blog addicts like us), if they know that Rudy blew off the ISG. Almost none do!

    Compared to things like the mistresses, this should be a “campaign ending” issue.

    But not if no one knows about it!

  • Beats the hell out of you Ted? May I? If folks like Ted Koppel would quit pussyfooting around the reality of these candidates by labeling Rudy’s major character flaws as “certain eccentricities, shall we say,” maybe folks around the rest of the nation would pay more attention to it.

    One of the best summations of Koppel’s disease was written by Nicholas Confessore – “why don’t any other reporters or columnists do it themselves? Because doing so would violate some of the informal, but strict, rules under which Washington journalists operate. Reporters usually don’t call a spade a spade, unless the lie is small or something personal. When it comes to big policy disagreements, most reporters prefer a he-said, she-said approach–and any policy with a white paper or press release behind it is presumed to be plausible and sincere, no matter how farfetched or deceptive it may be.

    “Similarly, among pundits of the broad center-left, it’s considered gauche to criticize the right too persistently, no matter the merits of one’s argument. The only worse sin is to defend a politician too persistently; then you become not a bore, but a disgrace to the profession and its independence–even if you’re correct…”

    Ted, Russ, if only you’d look in the mirror you’d see you’re part of the kabuki theater that you claim to dispassionately observing.

  • This, it seemed to me, was an interesting topic for a national broadcast television show. Maybe these worthy panelists would inform their audience of these pieces of information known to New Yorkers, and resolve to bring this information to their audiences at Time, The Washington Post, NPR, CBN, and the various General Electric-owned media properties.

    As Sumner Redstone, CEO of Viacom, owner of CBS, said in 2004 during the height of the controversy over the 60 Minutes report on Bush’s AWOL status with the Texas ANG, “Republicans are better for Viacom.”

    Anyone who thinks General Electric doesn’t think Giuliani would be better for General Electric than any Democrat, and that such beliefs do not filter throughout the company in all its subsidiaries, probably believes the sun rises in the west.

    Over the next 13 months, there will be no serious coverage of the Republican candidate, and any slightest gaffe by any Democrat will be trumpeteed in 36-point headlines.

    As was once said long ago, “The press is free to he who owns one.”

  • Though I’m pretty unhappy at the media’s pushing Lady Triangula on us, the one thing she’ll be good for is getting all the stuff about whichever worm the Republicans nominate into the public discourse. If I’m a Hillketeer, I’m pretty happy that all the Rudy stuff will be “fresh” for the general, should he make it that far. (I still don’t see it happening–it’ll be “Mittler,” who comes closest to acceptable for both the taxophobes and the Christatollahs.)

  • I find it hard to accept that Russert and Koppel couldn’t hear the words that were coming out of their mouths. I mean are they stupid or what? Answering their own questions without realizing it?
    Professional gooberism at its best.

  • …if enough money is spent saying the same thing over and over again, it becomes true.

    This is the essence of how the entire advertising and marketing industry works.

    I’m not even being sarcastic, or ironic, or even sardonic. It is a simple fact. It is true.

    The most important things in advertising are reach and frequency (and arguably targeting). That means: spend enough money saying the same thing over and over again.

  • Comments are closed.