23/07: The President and the Media
This summer I have been teaching an American Government course for the first time in my life. The book, ordered by the university for all adjunct classes, is Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy, brief 8th edition, by Edwards, Wattenberg, Lineberry, published by Pearson Longman. By and large I think it is a good text.
Every so often the authors will write something that surprises me. That is, it surprises me to find it in an academic textbook. Take these two paragraphs from the chapter on the presidency.
We learned in Chapter 6 that the news is fundamentally superficial, oversimplified, and often overblown, all of which provides the public with a distorted view of, among other things, presidential activities, statements, policies, and options. We have also seen that the press prefers to frame the news in themes, which both simplifies complex issues and events and provides continuity of persons, institutions, and issues. Once these themes are established, the press tends to maintain them in subsequent stories. Of necessity, themes emphasize some information at the expense of other data, often determining what information is most relevant to news coverage and the context in which it is presented.
. . .
News coverage of the presidency often tends to emphasize the negative (even if the negative stories are presented in a seemingly neutral manner), a trend that has increased over the past 20 years. In the 1980 election campaign, the press portrayed President Carter as mean and Ronald Reagan as imprecise rather than Carter as precise and Reagan as pleasant. The emphasis, in other words, was on the candidates' negative qualities. George Bush received extraordinarily negative press coverage during the 1992 election campaign, and the television networks' portrayal of the economy, for which Bush was blamed, got worse as the economy actually improved to a robust rate of growth!
So, the next time you are arguing media bias with liberal friends, you need not quote Rush. Instead quote these political scientists.
Every so often the authors will write something that surprises me. That is, it surprises me to find it in an academic textbook. Take these two paragraphs from the chapter on the presidency.
We learned in Chapter 6 that the news is fundamentally superficial, oversimplified, and often overblown, all of which provides the public with a distorted view of, among other things, presidential activities, statements, policies, and options. We have also seen that the press prefers to frame the news in themes, which both simplifies complex issues and events and provides continuity of persons, institutions, and issues. Once these themes are established, the press tends to maintain them in subsequent stories. Of necessity, themes emphasize some information at the expense of other data, often determining what information is most relevant to news coverage and the context in which it is presented.
. . .
News coverage of the presidency often tends to emphasize the negative (even if the negative stories are presented in a seemingly neutral manner), a trend that has increased over the past 20 years. In the 1980 election campaign, the press portrayed President Carter as mean and Ronald Reagan as imprecise rather than Carter as precise and Reagan as pleasant. The emphasis, in other words, was on the candidates' negative qualities. George Bush received extraordinarily negative press coverage during the 1992 election campaign, and the television networks' portrayal of the economy, for which Bush was blamed, got worse as the economy actually improved to a robust rate of growth!
So, the next time you are arguing media bias with liberal friends, you need not quote Rush. Instead quote these political scientists.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
You can't outsource forever on a small planet.
For several years now we have been outsourcing our pollution. Why do you think MADE IN CHINA is cheaper than MADE IN USA? Wages are only a part of it. A much bigger part is that China manufactures without the concern for the environment we have. With no need for expensive pollution control equipement (and worker safety practices) products are cheaper.
We have been outsourcing pollution.
But, on a small planet, you can't outsource forever. From the science section of the Wall Street Journal:
One tainted export from China can't be avoided in North America -- air.
An outpouring of dust layered with man-made sulfates, smog, industrial fumes, carbon grit and nitrates is crossing the Pacific Ocean on prevailing winds from booming Asian economies in plumes so vast they alter the climate. These rivers of polluted air can be wider than the Amazon and deeper than the Grand Canyon.
"There are times when it covers the entire Pacific Ocean basin like a ribbon bent back and forth," said atmospheric physicist V. Ramanathan at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif.
On some days, almost a third of the air over Los Angeles and San Francisco can be traced directly to Asia. With it comes up to three-quarters of the black carbon particulate pollution that reaches the West Coast, Dr. Ramanathan and his colleagues recently reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Full story here. Link from Drudge.
Nearly thirty-five years ago I read a science fiction story in which air pollution from Asia finally reached North America, signalling an end to breathable air on the planet. ("East Wind, West Wind?) Since the early 70s we have made considerable progress in our country in cleaning up the air. Now we are losing the results of our efforts thanks to the American consumer preference for cheap at any price. Buy American.
For several years now we have been outsourcing our pollution. Why do you think MADE IN CHINA is cheaper than MADE IN USA? Wages are only a part of it. A much bigger part is that China manufactures without the concern for the environment we have. With no need for expensive pollution control equipement (and worker safety practices) products are cheaper.
We have been outsourcing pollution.
But, on a small planet, you can't outsource forever. From the science section of the Wall Street Journal:
One tainted export from China can't be avoided in North America -- air.
An outpouring of dust layered with man-made sulfates, smog, industrial fumes, carbon grit and nitrates is crossing the Pacific Ocean on prevailing winds from booming Asian economies in plumes so vast they alter the climate. These rivers of polluted air can be wider than the Amazon and deeper than the Grand Canyon.
"There are times when it covers the entire Pacific Ocean basin like a ribbon bent back and forth," said atmospheric physicist V. Ramanathan at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif.
On some days, almost a third of the air over Los Angeles and San Francisco can be traced directly to Asia. With it comes up to three-quarters of the black carbon particulate pollution that reaches the West Coast, Dr. Ramanathan and his colleagues recently reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Full story here. Link from Drudge.
Nearly thirty-five years ago I read a science fiction story in which air pollution from Asia finally reached North America, signalling an end to breathable air on the planet. ("East Wind, West Wind?) Since the early 70s we have made considerable progress in our country in cleaning up the air. Now we are losing the results of our efforts thanks to the American consumer preference for cheap at any price. Buy American.
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, my life revolved around football. As a kid, I never turned down a neighborhood game. For most of my young life, in a time before internet, cable, or direct TV, I listened breathlessly on fall Saturdays to the radio (KNX and KFWB news stations in LA) awaiting updated scores on the quarter-hour concerning my beloved Baylor Bears. On Sundays, I followed the greatest professional football team in the history of the game, "America's Team," the Dallas Cowboys. I dutifully and happily played football for my school in junior high and high school.
For me, football wasn't everything, it was the only thing. Bob Lilly was my first hero. Sports biographies were the first works of literature that piqued my interest. During my adolescent years, Roger Staubach and Drew Pearson thrilled me, Mike Singletary and Earl Campbell amazed and inspired me, and Tom Landry and Grant Teaff modeled for me impeccable civility and character.
Over time, however, I progressively lost interest in the gridiron. Why? Part of it is fatherhood. My oldest son is eight years-old, and I cannot recount much that has happened in the NFL since 1999. I have been busy with more pressing matters. Part of it goes back much further than that. If truth be told, my alienation with professional sports probably dates back to February 1989, when Jerry Jones fired my boyhood hero, the man in the hat, Tom Landry. The game irrevocably changed for me on that chilly day.
More than any of that, though, I have lost faith with my erstwhile religion.
Why?
1. Football is no longer democratic. The NFL is populated with persons who are completely unlike anyone I know. The NFL is meritocratic, which is good. The best and most resilient athletes make it to and succeed in the League. But the problem is that ball players are not just bigger, faster, and stronger than normal people, they are a race of superhumans.
Fifty years ago, college recruiters were interested in my dad as an offensive guard. He was 5'9" and 180 pounds. This was a period in which almost any kid in America could play football. Size mattered, but not nearly as much as speed, agility, and, most of all, grit.
Today, most kids are not candidates to play college ball. The guys on the field are not like me. Football is not representative, even on the college level. Wasn't there a time when a college football game was supposed to match the best athletes from Baylor versus the best athletes from A&M? Wasn't it implied that these were student athletes? Undoubtedly, this harkens back to a fleeting moment of collegiate athletics that has probably been extinct for 100 years--but, if college athletes are NOT viable students from their respective schools, what is the point of college competition? It is no longer exciting for me to watch the best athletes Baylor can hire play the best athletes UT can hire (and not merely because UT is so much more adept at headhunting).
My silly and naive lament: It is no longer imaginable for some coach to tell some kid from the stands to go under the bleachers and get suited-up. The tradition of the 12th Man is still alive as cherished myth in 2007--but it is empty of any possibility and merely mocks our current age.
2. Even worse: Too many Michael Vicks.
Maybe the dog-fighting charges and the federal case against Mr. Vick will unfold in a way that exonerates the superstar quarterback. Time will tell.
Regardless, I continue to ask:
Why are we paying bad people enormous sums of money to play a sandlot game?
What redeeming cultural value does the NFL embody?
Why do our communities (municipalities, school districts, major universities) continue to devote mammoth resources to aiding and abetting this pastime?
Role models? Character building? Metaphor for life?
I am no longer satisfied by those answers. This is not to say that I am bereft of tenderness for the game. If someone knocked on my door this afternoon and asked me to get out in the street and play ball, I would jump at the chance to squeeze the pigskin one more time.
Moreover, it is likely that at some point this season I will be in the stands at Floyd Casey Stadium yelling "Sic 'em Bears!" at the top of my lungs.
Having said that, to paraphrase Howard Cosell, I am merely “a shell of the fan I used to be.” More to the point, without a doubt, I am just about finished supporting the lifestyles of the Michael Vicks of the world.
Addendum: We have a lot classic fans in our reading community. The Gardener's comments make me wonder where some of you are on football today. Comments?
For me, football wasn't everything, it was the only thing. Bob Lilly was my first hero. Sports biographies were the first works of literature that piqued my interest. During my adolescent years, Roger Staubach and Drew Pearson thrilled me, Mike Singletary and Earl Campbell amazed and inspired me, and Tom Landry and Grant Teaff modeled for me impeccable civility and character.
Over time, however, I progressively lost interest in the gridiron. Why? Part of it is fatherhood. My oldest son is eight years-old, and I cannot recount much that has happened in the NFL since 1999. I have been busy with more pressing matters. Part of it goes back much further than that. If truth be told, my alienation with professional sports probably dates back to February 1989, when Jerry Jones fired my boyhood hero, the man in the hat, Tom Landry. The game irrevocably changed for me on that chilly day.
More than any of that, though, I have lost faith with my erstwhile religion.
Why?
1. Football is no longer democratic. The NFL is populated with persons who are completely unlike anyone I know. The NFL is meritocratic, which is good. The best and most resilient athletes make it to and succeed in the League. But the problem is that ball players are not just bigger, faster, and stronger than normal people, they are a race of superhumans.
Fifty years ago, college recruiters were interested in my dad as an offensive guard. He was 5'9" and 180 pounds. This was a period in which almost any kid in America could play football. Size mattered, but not nearly as much as speed, agility, and, most of all, grit.
Today, most kids are not candidates to play college ball. The guys on the field are not like me. Football is not representative, even on the college level. Wasn't there a time when a college football game was supposed to match the best athletes from Baylor versus the best athletes from A&M? Wasn't it implied that these were student athletes? Undoubtedly, this harkens back to a fleeting moment of collegiate athletics that has probably been extinct for 100 years--but, if college athletes are NOT viable students from their respective schools, what is the point of college competition? It is no longer exciting for me to watch the best athletes Baylor can hire play the best athletes UT can hire (and not merely because UT is so much more adept at headhunting).
My silly and naive lament: It is no longer imaginable for some coach to tell some kid from the stands to go under the bleachers and get suited-up. The tradition of the 12th Man is still alive as cherished myth in 2007--but it is empty of any possibility and merely mocks our current age.
2. Even worse: Too many Michael Vicks.
Maybe the dog-fighting charges and the federal case against Mr. Vick will unfold in a way that exonerates the superstar quarterback. Time will tell.
Regardless, I continue to ask:
Why are we paying bad people enormous sums of money to play a sandlot game?
What redeeming cultural value does the NFL embody?
Why do our communities (municipalities, school districts, major universities) continue to devote mammoth resources to aiding and abetting this pastime?
Role models? Character building? Metaphor for life?
I am no longer satisfied by those answers. This is not to say that I am bereft of tenderness for the game. If someone knocked on my door this afternoon and asked me to get out in the street and play ball, I would jump at the chance to squeeze the pigskin one more time.
Moreover, it is likely that at some point this season I will be in the stands at Floyd Casey Stadium yelling "Sic 'em Bears!" at the top of my lungs.
Having said that, to paraphrase Howard Cosell, I am merely “a shell of the fan I used to be.” More to the point, without a doubt, I am just about finished supporting the lifestyles of the Michael Vicks of the world.
Addendum: We have a lot classic fans in our reading community. The Gardener's comments make me wonder where some of you are on football today. Comments?
22/07: Finding Reliable Allies
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
We cannot fight the war against militant Islam by ourselves. We need allies. The allies we can count on most will have their own reasons to fight militant Islam. One such nation is India. They have been on the frontline for centuries, and will continue to be as long as this war lasts.
Recognizing their own needs, the Indian military has quietly begun developing a military presence in Central Asia. The Times of India has the story on the patient military buildup by India in Tajikistan.
Recognizing their own needs, the Indian military has quietly begun developing a military presence in Central Asia. The Times of India has the story on the patient military buildup by India in Tajikistan.
Here is a list of the 50 most influential churches in the U.S. "Influence" in this article means influence with other churches and pastors. These are the churches that many, many pastors look to when trying to lead their own congregations.
The top 3:
1. Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington, Illinois web site
2. Saddle Back Church, Lake Forest, California web site
3. Fellowship Church, Grapevine, Texas web site
The highest ranking church with a black pastor:
9. The Potter's House, Dallas, Texas web site
Highest ranking mainline church
15. The United Methodist Church of the Resurrection, Leawood, Kansas web site
Fifteen of the top 50 are independent congregations. Twelve are Southern Baptist.
The top 3:
1. Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington, Illinois web site
2. Saddle Back Church, Lake Forest, California web site
3. Fellowship Church, Grapevine, Texas web site
The highest ranking church with a black pastor:
9. The Potter's House, Dallas, Texas web site
Highest ranking mainline church
15. The United Methodist Church of the Resurrection, Leawood, Kansas web site
Fifteen of the top 50 are independent congregations. Twelve are Southern Baptist.
20/07: Thank You, Harry Reid.
Republicans remain over the top in their criticism of the Democratic leadership in staging the all-night Senate debate. In truth, we ought to be thanking Harry Reid and his gang that cannot shoot straight.
The Good News:
1. Republicans ought to have their mouths washed out with soap for every time they even intimated that a debate regarding the War in Iraq was a waste of time. We need more all-night sessions in which Americans get a front row seat to a serious conversation about the war and the consequences of failure. The President does not have the ability to take that discussion to the American people. I am happy that Reid does. Regardless of his intentions, which were not honorable, Americans are talking about Iraq again.
2. More importantly, Republicans are talking about Iraq again. A few weeks ago Republicans were sniping at one another. Thanks to Harry Reid we are focused once again on how serious a predicament we are in and aware once again that we only get out of here alive, if we stick together. We could not have asked for a greater gift.
The Bad News:
1. Our latest victory only buys us a few weeks. In truth, we need a long-term Iraq strategy and commitment. Ten years maybe?
2. To do that, we need to take drastic steps to save and rebuild our depleted military. We need to go figure out how to secure peace and stability in Iraq without busting the treasury. We need to take our case to the American electorate and convince them that this action is worthwhile and doable.
3. Those are tall orders.
The Good News:
1. Republicans ought to have their mouths washed out with soap for every time they even intimated that a debate regarding the War in Iraq was a waste of time. We need more all-night sessions in which Americans get a front row seat to a serious conversation about the war and the consequences of failure. The President does not have the ability to take that discussion to the American people. I am happy that Reid does. Regardless of his intentions, which were not honorable, Americans are talking about Iraq again.
2. More importantly, Republicans are talking about Iraq again. A few weeks ago Republicans were sniping at one another. Thanks to Harry Reid we are focused once again on how serious a predicament we are in and aware once again that we only get out of here alive, if we stick together. We could not have asked for a greater gift.
The Bad News:
1. Our latest victory only buys us a few weeks. In truth, we need a long-term Iraq strategy and commitment. Ten years maybe?
2. To do that, we need to take drastic steps to save and rebuild our depleted military. We need to go figure out how to secure peace and stability in Iraq without busting the treasury. We need to take our case to the American electorate and convince them that this action is worthwhile and doable.
3. Those are tall orders.
20/07: More Reasons for Hillary-44
A few thoughts from a conversation with Bosque Boys reader and contributor, Coach, which further points to a Hillary Clinton presidency:
I said: Americans vote FOR people more than they vote AGAINST them. I agree that Hillary’s negatives are big—but I don’t think they will sink her. Her negatives are part of the landscape (a lot like Nixon). They strike me as obstacles that sharp operators can navigate, having the advantage of knowing where they are from the outset.
I continue to think Hillary can win in November. I tend to think her biggest problem is that Democrats might panic in January and decide she can’t win in November and look for a more conventional candidate.
Coach agreed and added that "the Democrats don’t have a good conventional candidate to fall back on."
And he ticked off a few other elements in Hillary's favor:
--The Republicans don’t have a candidate for those who would most oppose Hillary. Neither Giuliani or McCain (moderates) or Romney (a recently converted conservative) are especially fitted to the needs of conservative Christians, who seem to find the most fault with Hillary.
An Aside from me: I am not sure how Fred Thompson fits in to that equation.
--Hillary will run as a moderate, advocating positions very close to the Republican candidate.
--The Republican candidate will be fighting an uphill battle. This is a Democratic election year. See the results of the recent Congressional elections and the approval ratings for the President.
--The electorate is restless. The public has unrealistic expectations about what the president can actually do, and they are disappointed when those expectations aren’t met.
--Hillary will have the discipline to stay on message and listen to her magnificent brain trust. Part of the political genius of the Clintons is that they never slip up during elections. They are criticized for being phony or “canned”, but there are never any gaffes.
Good handicapping, Coach.
I said: Americans vote FOR people more than they vote AGAINST them. I agree that Hillary’s negatives are big—but I don’t think they will sink her. Her negatives are part of the landscape (a lot like Nixon). They strike me as obstacles that sharp operators can navigate, having the advantage of knowing where they are from the outset.
I continue to think Hillary can win in November. I tend to think her biggest problem is that Democrats might panic in January and decide she can’t win in November and look for a more conventional candidate.
Coach agreed and added that "the Democrats don’t have a good conventional candidate to fall back on."
And he ticked off a few other elements in Hillary's favor:
--The Republicans don’t have a candidate for those who would most oppose Hillary. Neither Giuliani or McCain (moderates) or Romney (a recently converted conservative) are especially fitted to the needs of conservative Christians, who seem to find the most fault with Hillary.
An Aside from me: I am not sure how Fred Thompson fits in to that equation.
--Hillary will run as a moderate, advocating positions very close to the Republican candidate.
--The Republican candidate will be fighting an uphill battle. This is a Democratic election year. See the results of the recent Congressional elections and the approval ratings for the President.
--The electorate is restless. The public has unrealistic expectations about what the president can actually do, and they are disappointed when those expectations aren’t met.
--Hillary will have the discipline to stay on message and listen to her magnificent brain trust. Part of the political genius of the Clintons is that they never slip up during elections. They are criticized for being phony or “canned”, but there are never any gaffes.
Good handicapping, Coach.
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: an okie gardener
Some, such as Ted Kennedy, apparently do not think so. President Bush's recent nominee for Surgeon General, Dr. James W. Holsinger, is under attack in Senate hearings because his denomination, the United Methodist Church, officially disapproves of same-sex sex. Story here.
Former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop also did not affirm same-sex sex, referring to gay sex as "sodomy." But, the gay community came to respect him because of his advocacy and actions on behalf of persons with AIDS, and his push for prevention. Asked about this issue and his personal beliefs, he once replied that he was the national's Surgeon General not the nation's Chaplain General.
Apparantly a lot of people do not understand that a Christian commitment to justice, which includes striving to be fair to all, means that we Christians can "do right by" the very people we disagree with.
Former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop also did not affirm same-sex sex, referring to gay sex as "sodomy." But, the gay community came to respect him because of his advocacy and actions on behalf of persons with AIDS, and his push for prevention. Asked about this issue and his personal beliefs, he once replied that he was the national's Surgeon General not the nation's Chaplain General.
Apparantly a lot of people do not understand that a Christian commitment to justice, which includes striving to be fair to all, means that we Christians can "do right by" the very people we disagree with.
Category: General
Posted by: an okie gardener
The narrative of the Book of Jeremiah has gotten an affirmation from a recent find in the British museum: the name of a Babylonian official mentioned in Jeremiah has been found in a Babylonian tablet. Enough detail is given to establish that the same person is mentioned in both. Story here.
19/07: Do You Approve of Congress?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Does it matter that public approval of Congress is at historic lows?
The dreadful numbers for Congress, even lower than the President's dreadful numbers, is an increasingly ubiquitous talking point in the conservative media. Does this mean that Americans are disgruntled with Democratic leadership in Congress? Should Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi read this polling data with alarm? Should we take heart from these polls?
Not really. Congressional approval ratings don't mean much.
Elections 101: Traditionally, the American people hate Congress but love their Congressman. While only 14 percent of voters voice approval for Congress, we can rest assured that no incumbent will go down to dramatic defeat in the next congressional election. Most of the incumbents will win easy victory, and the handful that will lose in November 2008 will run very close races. That is, you can bet the house that there will not be any incumbents polling within 30 points of that 14 percent mark on Election Day.
Most Americans cannot even identify their Congressman. Here is how it goes: "we hate Congress, but our guy is okay." Who is your guy? "Let me think...."
The President personifies American government. When voters get mad at government, the President is in trouble. I have not seen any polling data with this question, but my hunch is that a shockingly low percentage of Americans understand that Congress is currently in the hands of an opposition party.
Americans are frustrated and angry right now. They dislike the President, and they dislike his government. That brand of thinking is neither fair nor rational, but, I suspect with a high degree of certainty, that it is prevalent.
My point: don't hang your hat on low numbers for Congress. Dissatisfaction with Congress is closely linked with dissatisfaction with government, which is embodied by George Bush.
UPDATE: One more thing. Having said all that, I am convinced that if the shoe were on the other foot, and a Republican Congress had these kinds of public opinion numbers, they would be front-page news for the mainstream media.
The dreadful numbers for Congress, even lower than the President's dreadful numbers, is an increasingly ubiquitous talking point in the conservative media. Does this mean that Americans are disgruntled with Democratic leadership in Congress? Should Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi read this polling data with alarm? Should we take heart from these polls?
Not really. Congressional approval ratings don't mean much.
Elections 101: Traditionally, the American people hate Congress but love their Congressman. While only 14 percent of voters voice approval for Congress, we can rest assured that no incumbent will go down to dramatic defeat in the next congressional election. Most of the incumbents will win easy victory, and the handful that will lose in November 2008 will run very close races. That is, you can bet the house that there will not be any incumbents polling within 30 points of that 14 percent mark on Election Day.
Most Americans cannot even identify their Congressman. Here is how it goes: "we hate Congress, but our guy is okay." Who is your guy? "Let me think...."
The President personifies American government. When voters get mad at government, the President is in trouble. I have not seen any polling data with this question, but my hunch is that a shockingly low percentage of Americans understand that Congress is currently in the hands of an opposition party.
Americans are frustrated and angry right now. They dislike the President, and they dislike his government. That brand of thinking is neither fair nor rational, but, I suspect with a high degree of certainty, that it is prevalent.
My point: don't hang your hat on low numbers for Congress. Dissatisfaction with Congress is closely linked with dissatisfaction with government, which is embodied by George Bush.
UPDATE: One more thing. Having said all that, I am convinced that if the shoe were on the other foot, and a Republican Congress had these kinds of public opinion numbers, they would be front-page news for the mainstream media.
