In The Blogs

What's Needed in Coverage of GOP Candidates

| Tue Aug. 21, 2007 7:01 AM PDT

Unlike a lot of people, I don't have a problem with certain kinds of superficial campaign coverage. Take, for example this recent Boston Globe story that analyzed the "Leave it to Beaver" language used by Mitt Romney on the campaign trail.

"Whoop-de-do!" he says of John Edwards's proposal to let Americans save $250 tax-free. "Gosh, I love America," Romney said during one GOP debate. After hitting a long golf drive in one of his campaign videos, he shouts, "Holy moly!"

Romney often sounds as if he has stepped out of a time machine from 1950s suburban America...

Okay, fine. That's not really interesting, but whatever. If a reporter and an editor want to put in the time to dissect this sort of stuff, that's their choice. If you or I, as serious consumers of news, want something more substantive, we can just find it somewhere else. Right?

Wrong! This campaign season, we have not seen the Globe or anyone else publish a dissection of Romney's language one day and a dissection of his Iraq policy the next. No one is paying attention to the complete and utter lack of substantive issue positions from the Republicans. They have no serious ideas on Iraq, on health care, or on climate change — they're running on rhetoric, personality, and resume. The Democrats have all of that, plus incredibly detailed plans for America's most pressing priorities. Until that truth appears in the mainstream media regularly, superficial coverage like the Globe's remains troubling.

One possible exception here, by the way, is the American Prospect, which has written about this once and blogged about it as well. (We've noted it too.)

Advertisement

Comments

Submitted by John (not verified) on Tue Aug. 21, 2007 4:39 PM PDT.

Jezz dude. What country are you living in? Why do you think a news personality would be able to comprehend these (supposedly ? amazing) "detailed plans". Are these news personalities Americans? AND, in case you don't know any REAL `mericans (which must be the case), REAL `merican don't watch or read "the news"; they watch SPORTS. There's lots of other more important stuff than "details", even IF these (amazing) "detailed plans" could be distilled down to the 5 or 10 second attention span of the average `merican peasant.

For you socialist to implement these (amazing) "detail plans", you need to win! To win, you need to either entertain or scare these peasants ? AND "the message" has to be easy to grasp.

What works: "those people" gonna git ya, real soon.
What doesn't: global warming is going to melt the ice caps in 100 years and you might get wet and die.

See the difference? The average peasant can't think beyond a few hours into the future. And "the ice caps" could be ANYTHING in their tiny brains.

Submitted by John (not verified) on Tue Aug. 21, 2007 4:39 PM PDT.

For you socialist to implement these (amazing) "detail plans", you need to win! To win, you need to either entertain or scare these peasants ? AND "the message" has to be easy to grasp.

What works: "those people" gonna git ya, real soon.
What doesn't: global warming is going to melt the ice caps in 100 years and you might get wet and die.

See the difference? The average peasant can't think beyond a few hours into the future. And "the ice caps" could be ANYTHING in their tiny brains.

Submitted by John (not verified) on Tue Aug. 21, 2007 4:39 PM PDT.

Jezz dude. What country are you living in? Why do you think a news personality would be able to comprehend these (supposedly amazing) "detailed plans". Are these news personalities Americans? AND, in case you don't know any REAL `mericans (which must be the case), REAL `merican don't watch or read "the news"; they watch SPORTS. There's lots of other more important stuff than "details", even IF these (amazing) "detailed plans" could be distilled down to the 5 or 10 second attention span of the average `merican peasant.

For you socialist to implement these (amazing) "detail plans", you need to win! To win, you need to either entertain or scare these peasants AND "the message" has to be easy to grasp.

What works: "those people" gonna git ya, real soon.
What doesn't: global warming is going to melt the ice caps in 100 years and you might get wet and die.

See the difference? The average peasant can't think beyond a few hours into the future. And "the ice caps" could be ANYTHING in their tiny brains.

Submitted by bob (not verified) on Wed Aug. 22, 2007 5:08 AM PDT.

come on, the race for the white house is started a year early and you think there are detailed plans for the demos. that is BS. Yes the Reps are only running on I'm not bush and I am bush at the same time(running away from his failure, and going to continue doing the same thing). A completely sane policy.

Well the demos are running on, I'm not Bush,and free health care and what ever else you want, Lets speed more money.

Come on you have Choice A or Choice A. And if you don't like it well you can always elect a New Choice A.

Submitted by ben (not verified) on Wed Aug. 22, 2007 3:57 PM PDT.

why is MoJo turning into a democrat love rag? especially mr. stein. absolutely no serious criticisms of what for all intents and purposes is 'more of the same' politics. and why no articles on the merging of the two party system into a one party system. nothing on the possibilty of a 24 year clinton/bush dynasty, and the peculiar similarities between the politics.

if this is the direction MoJo is heading, count me O U T.

Submitted by DrooliusSneezer (not verified) on Wed Aug. 22, 2007 4:07 PM PDT.

Ben, you might be on to something.
MotherJones recently opens a Washington DC bureau, just like all the MSM outlets have.
No longer an 'outsider' but an inside player, right in the back pocket of the country's one ruling party, shoveling 'the usual', while feigning the 'critical outsider' role.