September 2002 Archive

But why is being openly partisan seen as such a terrible thing in America? Why is so much time and effort expended to hide it or deny it? Or, put another way, why is bipartisanship such a desirable thing, often presented as being somehow above politics? Is it American exceptionalism again?

There were some interesting responses made by others; let me put in my two cents. In Eric Alterman's book Sound and Fury : The Making of the Punditocracy, he describes how the very partisan American newspapers of the 19th century gave way to the idea of objective journalism in the 20th. Mr. Alterman thinks this has led to boring journalism and bad punditry; he argues for a system more like that in the U.K., where newspapers are more overtly ideological (are they overtly partisan?).

I wouldn't have a problem with an ideological or partisan newspaper if it were honestly acknowledged. But I think that truly independent analysis is an invaluable part of the political debate. Partisan commentary is like advertising -- there may be some useful information along with the distortion, but it's very difficult to make good decisions based on advertising alone.

Politicians are self-defined as partisans, but major American newspapers claim to be independent, and even the columnist dominating the Lying in Ponds rankings rejects the notion that he is partisan. Lying in Ponds is an attempt to encourage independent commentary by analyzing those who claim to practice it.

[permanent link]

In 1935 Adolph S. Ochs died. In his will he reiterated the principles that he had often expressed publicly. Publishers, editors and reporters of The Times have striven to adhere to them ever since. The Times, he wrote, should be operated as "an independent newspaper, entirely fearless, devoted to the public welfare without regard to individual advantage or ambition, the claims of party politics or personal prejudice or predilection."

It was his hope that The Times's editorial pages "may continue to reflect the best informed thought of the country, honest in every line, more than fair and courteous to those who may sincerely differ with its views", that "its news columns may continue fairly to present, without recognizing friend or foe, the news of the day -- 'All the News Thats Fit to Print' -- and to present it impartially, reflecting all shades of opinion," and that "its business departments may continue to conform to the highest standards of business ethics and that all persons associated or connected with any of the departments of The New York Times organization may be treated justly and generously."

Gore's speech was one no decent politician could have delivered. It was dishonest, cheap, low. It was hollow. It was bereft of policy, of solutions, of constructive ideas, very nearly of facts -- bereft of anything other than taunts and jibes and embarrassingly obvious lies. It was breathtakingly hypocritical, a naked political assault delivered in tones of moral condescension from a man pretending to be superior to mere politics. It was wretched. It was vile. It was contemptible. But I understate.

Let me try an analogy which helps explain my view of parties. I generally support free market capitalism because I think it provides the best result for most people, despite the fact that it allows (and some would say encourages) greed, resulting in many obvious abuses (Enron, etc.). In the same way, party politics also seems to produce generally good results in a democratic system, despite the fact that it is at least partly driven by ambition and a kind of tribalism that often leads to obvious abuses. In both cases, I would say that it is critical that there exist effective mechanisms to constrain these negative aspects. In the case of capitalism, constraints would come from honest independent accountants, government regulators, an independent business press, etc. In the case of parties, constraints would come from honest elections and an independent press, among other things.

The premise of this web site is that columnists from major newspapers should be (and in fact claim to be) politically independent (not neutral, poised between the two parties, but rather independent, not beholden to either one, able to take independent positions, even though they will tend to tilt one way or the other). So I attempt to measure how often a columnist's writings tend to line up with one party or another, implying that when they line up too closely, it suggests that a columnist is not truly independent and is failing to play the effective "Consumer Reports"-type of role that they should.

As an aside, I expect politicians themselves to be quite partisan. The book makes it very clear that in affiliating with a party, a politician is accepting a reduction in their own ideological independence in exchange for other benefits. But I don't see how a political columnist is in a similar position. In choosing not to identify with a party, a pundit should be completely free to pursue truth, unconstrained by the personal political considerations which limit politicians.

[permanent link]

1. Susanna Cornett publishes Cut on the Bias: "keeping an eye on the spins and weirdness of media, crime and everyday life."
2. Media Minded is written by an anonymous "copy editor at one of America's largest daily newspapers."
3. According to Dr. Andrew R. Cline: "The Rhetorica Network, including my Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal web log, is my attempt to explain the persuasive tactics of politics and the press."

[permanent link]

JAGUAR: Mac OS X 10.2 ("Jaguar") arrived this week. I installed it with no problem -- yesssssss!

[permanent link]

Maureen Dowd is the pundit who probably made the biggest splash, day-in, day-out, during the Clinton administration. Curiously apolitical, Dowd was a flashy stylist who covered politics as if she were writing personal diary entries or perhaps letters to her mother. If [Frank] Rich viewed politics as theater, Dowd saw it as sitcom. She commented on the style of the actors but never took seriously what any of them had to say. Sometimes a given actor would infuriate her by breaking some moral rule that Dowd did not consider to be among the forgivable sins.

Even though her politics were impossible to discern, Dowd enjoyed outsized influence throughout the punditocracy, in large measure owing to her audacious style and unique perspective.

At the same meeting, Sarah A. Binder of the Brookings Institution and George Washington University said the evidence shows that while gridlock may be damaging to the reputation of Congress, individual lawmakers are not punished by their voters for the failings of the institution and thus have little incentive to worry about such matters.

I would argue that part of the reason that politicians are able to get away with bad behavior is that even the most snarling partisan can count on support -- or at least silence -- from many pundits whose own partisanship prevents them from being the independent voice needed by a democratic system. Thankfully, Mr. Broder is one such independent voice.

KELLER ON KERRY: Senator John Kerry was the subject of a fair and balanced column by Bill Keller yesterday.

[permanent link]

The league's decision to torpedo Mr. Sununu is partly a reward to Mr. Smith. He openly opposed President Bush over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

More than that, it's a reward to Democrats. Let's remember, the Smith-Sununu race is simply the Republican primary. The winner of that race will face Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat. According to the latest numbers, Mr. Smith is polling behind Ms. Shaheen. But Mr. Sununu is polling ahead. Defeating Mr. Sununu now would knock the stronger opponent out of the race, leaving Ms. Shaheen a better chance to win in November. This is partisan political hardball.

Democratic references are blue, Republican references are red, positive references are bold, negative are in italics and neutral are plain blue or red. Following is a list of each partisan reference above, with the explanation for its evaluation:

1. "torpedo Mr. Sununu"
   Positive, it sympathetically describes him as the victim of a "torpedo".
2. "reward to Mr. Smith"
   Neutral, Smith gets a reward, but no implication that he has done anything positive or negative.
3. "opposed President Bush over drilling"
   Negative, simple statement that Bush was opposed.
4. "reward to Democrats"
   Neutral, again no obvious implication toward Democrats.
5. "Smith-Sununu race"
   Both neutral, simple statement of the existence of a race.
6. "the Republican primary"
   Neutral, same as previous.
7. "face Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat"
   Both neutral, same as previous.
8. "Mr. Smith is polling "
   Negative, a factual statement of something unfavorable to Smith.
9. "behind Ms. Shaheen"
   Positive, a factual statement of something favorable to Shaheen.
10. "But Mr. Sununu"
    Positive, a factual statement of something favorable to Sununu.
11. "Defeating Mr. Sununu"
    Positive, Strassel believes that Sununu is the stronger opponent.
12. "leaving Ms. Shaheen"
    Neutral, Strassel thinks Shaheen would have a better chance to win only if her stonger opponent is knocked out. Also it's hypothetical.

The one positive reference to Shaheen shows how easy it is for a pundit to make positive references to the opposite party. In this case, it's just a simple factual statement that Ms. Shaheen is ahead of one of her opponents in a poll. Since the bar is so low, it's all the more amazing that pundits such as Ms. Strassel and Ms. Levey could write eight months of columns without making a single positive Democratic reference.

[permanent link]

Yesterday's Mary McGrory column is another example. Ms. McGrory writes a charming column entirely about gardening, but finds a way to somehow bring in George W. Bush and criticize him because he "hates international treaties". This column paints a picture of Ms. McGrory's world as one where Democrats are like Tony Lake and George Stephanopoulos -- who help her with gardening -- while Republicans are like John Ehrlichman -- who threatened her "anti-war pals". Looking over McGrory's columns this year, you can find political columns like the one in June where she lavishly praised her Republican friend Elliot Richardson, but nothing that looks like a counterpart to the gardening column.

[permanent link]