 Caveat lector 3 October 2000 Our current howler (part II): Big time!
It's a great big week for Gore and Bush. But it's also a big week for spinners. On Monday, Katharine Seelye was telling her readers all about Gore's debate style. He was "ruthless," "relentless," a "bully," "maniacal" ("Kit" worked her way down the list). Then she served a great big whopper, playing off Sunday's This Week:
Seelye's analysis is absolute nonsense—but a treasured bit of this campaign's press corps spin. As we saw yesterday, Gore asked Bradley why had voted, in 1993, against a piece of flood relief for Iowa (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/2/00). In that year, Bradley had voted in favor of an initial relief bill, then voted against a second relief package. Gore's question explicitly concerned that second, billion-dollar package, as we noted in yesterday's HOWLER. Gore referred to Peterson in his question:
Gore's reference to "the extra billion dollars of disaster relief" would have been familiar to Iowa voters. (Gore audibly stressed the word "extra.") Bradley didn't answer Gore's question:
Gore asked the question a second time, and Bradley evaded again. It's easy to see why Bradley wouldn't want to answer Gore's question. Rightly or wrongly, he had voted against a billion dollars of flood relief which had helped many Iowa farmers. But the press corps was deep in the Bradley camp, and they have pretended, from that day to this, that Gore had somehow asked a misleading question, and that Bradley had "forgotten his vote" (Cokie Roberts) or "appeared not to know his own record" (Seelye). On Sunday, Roberts presented the silly spin. Seelye here presents it again. In fact, Bradley surely knew his own record quite well—he had voted against Iowa flood relief! What's the mystery about the evasion? But Seelye pretends that Bradley forgot his vote—implying that Gore somehow pulled off a slick one. This, of course, is the work we get from those who say Gore can't be trusted. So watch your wallets when tonight's debate is done, because the spinners will be going full bore. In a rational world, a reporter would get bumped down a beat or two for a nonsensical "analysis" like the one Seelye pens—nine months after the event she bungles. But this of course is the Washington press corps—corrupt, inept, a hapless elite. On Monday, Ceci Connolly was spinning, too. The Post ran her gruel on page one:
Ceci's pathological style is on display right from the outset. What many would see as an amusing joke, she sees instead as a "piercing blow," a "trap," in which Kemp has been called a "dumb jock." Her crackpot imagery is drawn from cable shows in which crocodiles clamp down their jaws on small frogs. Whatever frightened this scribe long ago, Gore clearly makes her recall it. Connolly too recites standard images of Gore's "ruthless" style in debate. ("By the time the 90 minutes are over, Gore will have succeeded in stripping bare his opponent's greatest vulnerability." The imagery is straight from "Wild Kingdom.") And humor strikes her very differently, depending on who throws the jibe. Here is part of her assessment of Gore's debate with Dan Quayle:
Gore had just been called a drug-smoker. But when Quayle aims an unlovely jibe at Gore, it's an "aside," and Quayle is "at ease," not an aggressor. Only Gore's jokes are "piercing blows" and a "trap." But the real amusement in Connolly's piece comes when she starts to embellish. That's right, folks. Connolly is so eager to show what a phony Gore is, she just can't help reconstructing the truth:
Alas! Here at THE HOWLER, we were disinclined to believe the highlighted statement. So we made our analysts review the tape of the Hanover forum, checking to see how many questioners Gore had "greeted with a question of his own." Connolly says he questioned every one. Let's go back through the first dozen questioners:
It is clear from Connolly's article that she has recently watched tape of this debate. She was simply lying—there is no other word—when she said Gore had "greeted each questioner with a question of his own." Meanwhile, what were some of the shocking circumstances in which Gore did ask the citizens a question? Questioner 2 spoke to Gore about health care. Gore's questions were those of a human:
Like a human—perhaps Connolly has forgotten—Gore inquired about the age of the child (five), and asked if Ms. Martin had good insurance (she did). He told her he hoped we will find a cure for her child's disease, then gave a general answer to her larger question. So no—Gore didn't "greet each questioner with a question of his own." That was an apparent lie which this scribe told her readers, in service to her endless, noxious spin. And Connolly embellished a bit later, too. She was chatting about ol' Smoot and Hawley:
Was that an example of the way Gore "devotes a good deal of preparation to creating a visual moment?" It's clearly presented that way. But oops—it looks like Connolly has embellished again. Here is James Fallows' account of the Smoot-Hawley photo from his detailed Atlantic piece in July:
According to Fallows, Gore had "devoted so much preparation" to the Smoot-Hawley photo that he first mentioned it on "the very morning of the debate." But Connolly just couldn't help embellishing. At this point, readers, we're not even sure that she knows when she's doing it! In fact, to be absolutely honest about it, we're not sure that she knows who she is. These book-end previews present prime examples of press corps spinners in action. They include all the Official Approved Images of Gore; treasured, bogus spin from the primary campaign; and even an example where the writer reviews tape, then dissembles about what is on it. No critique is too brainless to offer. Enjoy a laugh at Seelye's idea of attribution:
The ugly imagery of "annihilation" fits the Official Approved Spin. But note Seelye's comic-book journalism. Who calls this "the Eddie Haskell effect?" "Some" do, the scribe reports. Forgive us for wondering if the people referred to are herself and her fellow crackpot, Ceci Connolly. Tonight in Boston, Gore and Bush will be on stage, offering their ideas to the nation. But locked inside a stuffy room, press corps spinners will be watching and waiting. We strongly advise you to proceed with care when the press corps begins to tell you what happened. Our press corps is a troubled elite—corrupt, inept, profoundly unaccountable. We suggest you trust your own eyes tonight. The spinners will be out in force. On Monday, two scribes gave a preview.
Smile-a-while (10/3/00) Gunning for laughs: Speaking of jokes, Connolly has her own comic style, as the Financial Times described in August. The paper noted that Connolly is "hostile to the [Gore] campaign, doing little to hide [her] contempt for the candidate and his team:"
Observer: Tale of two press corps
|