| face value "Taken at face value it wasn't anger, it was a steam-letting, and an attempt to rally the troops, and totally understandable. The press, as usual, is making a big deal of catching a candidate being a human being. But that's what he is. He's not an actor, he's not a commercial, he's not a deodorant, he's not a product, and I'm glad we have a chance to have this discussion. I'm not a Dean supporter (yet, but I'm getting there) and they didn't ask me to say this, but please, it's time for the press to let us have an election, or maybe it's time for us to have an election without them."
it's not the speech, it's the context.
dean spent tons of money, imported 3500 troops, got Tom Harkin's endorsement -- and got EIGHTEEN PERCENT of the vote.
basically the biggest defeat imaginable.
why? because he was viewed as
a) arrogant; and
b) angry
so what does he do?
at the very moment when most americans start to look at the field for the first time, and they're hearing how he had a big lead and blew it by being angry and arrogant, he gives a concession speech that was
a) angry
b) arrogant
c) fucking weird
luckily for him, it was weird enough that he's been able to turn it into a joke.
but what's so unpresidential is the terrible judgement he exercised about the timing of the speech (i think this is a better way to view it than the tenor of the speech at that moment).
the media didn't make him act like a completely ungracious, hysterical freak of a THIRD PLACE FINISHER. He did.
Dean apologists seem to think, somehow, that Dean did just fine in Iowa except for this one bad speech.
the speech isn't the point. the terrible defeat is.
actually he's LUCKY that people are focused on the former and not the latter.
i agree that the speech isnt the point but its been made into the point. the defeat was terrible and i have no doubt that he and his organization were greatly to fault for that on top of the beating he has taken in the media. but i still wouldnt call that angry, at worst it was ill advised. it was a tired man trying to rally the troops after an initial defeat -- yaknow -- lost the battle but we will win the war. and i think the focus on the speech reinforces the degree of the defeat, and doesnt merely deflect attention away from it.
admittedly ive only seen clips of the speech. when exactly was he ungracious? did he call kerry a motherfucker cause i must have missed that?
"Temper? Angry? I have heard that speech ridiculed a hundred times since Monday, but virtually no one has ever called it angry or hot-tempered. And I have stopped people who were ridiculing it and asked if they thought it was angry, and the reaction was always befuddlement: "Angry? No, not angry, just weird. Really weird." Or whacko, unseemly, whatever. Definitely not angry."
It's the Wellstone memorial all over again. An emotional moment among friends is taken out of context and played ad infinitum with the wrong spin. I kind of gave up on politics years ago when I realized it was all about being telegenic, which is to me a fake world unto itself that people only think conveys up close and personal insight--ie "the truth." Even I "believe" what I see on the screen, which is why I'd rather read five different accounts and navigate the truth from that. I don't really respect anyone working in the TV news medium, it's all about dishing out fakeness--manipulating clips, constructing a narrative that most people take for objective truth.
bill, what is that?
thanks for the clue steve, Im a lil slow, it takes a village to raise an idiot. that was (yet) another fmu msg board find.
The Dean speech isn't wierd when viewed in context. But the mass media isn't about context. It's about video loops that deliver eye-balls to advertizers.
one last look from a video camera in the crowd. as the commentor on the board where i found this said, the dean scream is not only taken out of the context but the nature of the technology encourages a certain perspective. the scream as we hear it in the mainstream media is stripped of the crowd noise by the microphones used. this vidcam captures the noise level as it was heard onsite. of course, this is just quibbling. i found nothing wrong with the effort to begin with.
You can't even hear the so-called yawp on that tape. I still strongly disagree with Mark that propaganda is a value-neutral word like "weather" and that the left must use it because the Bushies do. The (mis)use by the right-leaning media of the Dean footage is propaganda. What counters it is contrasting views of the same event like Dave just posted. You fight propaganda with truth--in this case showing how one tape or recording can't be entirely trusted.
the last word (until the next last word) Never believe anything anyone tells you.
That's all I can conclude from having (belatedly) actually watched the Howard Dean post- Iowa "scream" speech that so devastated his campaign.
No one will ever confuse me with a Dean supporter; he would have been my fifth choice as the nominee, after Clark, Graham, Edwards, and Kerry.
But watch the damned thing for yourself and tell me if you can see the angry, ranting Dean everyone has been describing and joking about. It's a pure pep-rally speech: not a form of oratory I especially admire, but not a scandal, either.
Dean doesn't seem a bit angry: the message is one of passionate conviction that he's going to win. He's smiling. He doesn't have a harsh word for anyone.
I can think of six good reasons why Howard Dean shouldn't be the Democratic nominee, but this is just silly. What the hell is the issue here?
Notice any news media backlash on bloggers. That is media discrediting blog criticisim for over cashing in on a non-story. Lets even accept for a second that the media chose to run with it as a commercial decision or even out of sheer laziness and was not (always) politically motivated.
im not sure what you mean by "over cashing in on a non-story." there was some backlash after iowa over deans inevitablility. i think that billmon article i posted earlier looks at the difference between the more organic nature of the blog news cycle vs the bureaucratic top-down approach employed by major news organizations which fosters a passive information consumer vs an active engaged citizen.
It seemed like I was hearing the conventional press seizing the moment to discredit blogg criticism of the media as biased instead of a serious self examination (of news orginisations going with this non-story). A non-story when viewed in context, the context of the whole speach, the context of circumstances of the speach and the isolation (removal of context) of his voice from the context of the full sound of the room.
i think if its true then a bloggers response would be that they never claimed not to be biased. blogging is about expressing your opinion. its the news organization which profess not to possess a bias that is at issue. whether as you said they are biased in favor of their bottom line rather than explicit partisanship (such as is nearly explicity with fox and conservatives), this ultimately impacts their editorial behavior.
in the past, serious self examination of the media was left to scholars, but as the internet has lowered the barrier for mass media to virtually zero, the blogosphere has now become a focal point for the democratization of criticism, and with it an ability to magnify the many inconsistencies half truths and biases which pervade the media. so if the media are taking a whack at bloggers its only out of fear as their power to control the narrative is being challenged.
journalists are fond of refering to journalism as the first draft of history. they now have a lot of new editors and critics.
|
- dave 1-23-2004 7:08 pm
it's not the speech, it's the context.
dean spent tons of money, imported 3500 troops, got Tom Harkin's endorsement -- and got EIGHTEEN PERCENT of the vote.
basically the biggest defeat imaginable.
why? because he was viewed as
a) arrogant; and
b) angry
so what does he do?
at the very moment when most americans start to look at the field for the first time, and they're hearing how he had a big lead and blew it by being angry and arrogant, he gives a concession speech that was
a) angry
b) arrogant
c) fucking weird
luckily for him, it was weird enough that he's been able to turn it into a joke.
but what's so unpresidential is the terrible judgement he exercised about the timing of the speech (i think this is a better way to view it than the tenor of the speech at that moment).
the media didn't make him act like a completely ungracious, hysterical freak of a THIRD PLACE FINISHER. He did.
Dean apologists seem to think, somehow, that Dean did just fine in Iowa except for this one bad speech.
the speech isn't the point. the terrible defeat is.
actually he's LUCKY that people are focused on the former and not the latter.
- big jimmy 1-23-2004 10:19 pm [add a comment]
i agree that the speech isnt the point but its been made into the point. the defeat was terrible and i have no doubt that he and his organization were greatly to fault for that on top of the beating he has taken in the media. but i still wouldnt call that angry, at worst it was ill advised. it was a tired man trying to rally the troops after an initial defeat -- yaknow -- lost the battle but we will win the war. and i think the focus on the speech reinforces the degree of the defeat, and doesnt merely deflect attention away from it.
admittedly ive only seen clips of the speech. when exactly was he ungracious? did he call kerry a motherfucker cause i must have missed that?
- dave 1-23-2004 10:37 pm [add a comment]
- dave 1-24-2004 1:04 am [add a comment]
It's the Wellstone memorial all over again. An emotional moment among friends is taken out of context and played ad infinitum with the wrong spin. I kind of gave up on politics years ago when I realized it was all about being telegenic, which is to me a fake world unto itself that people only think conveys up close and personal insight--ie "the truth." Even I "believe" what I see on the screen, which is why I'd rather read five different accounts and navigate the truth from that. I don't really respect anyone working in the TV news medium, it's all about dishing out fakeness--manipulating clips, constructing a narrative that most people take for objective truth.
- tom moody 1-24-2004 1:26 am [add a comment]
- bill 1-24-2004 2:23 am [add a comment]
bill, what is that?
- sally mckay 1-24-2004 5:19 am [add a comment]
thanks for the clue steve, Im a lil slow, it takes a village to raise an idiot. that was (yet) another fmu msg board find.
- bill 1-24-2004 7:07 pm [add a comment]
The Dean speech isn't wierd when viewed in context. But the mass media isn't about context. It's about video loops that deliver eye-balls to advertizers.
- mark 1-25-2004 4:10 am [add a comment]
one last look from a video camera in the crowd. as the commentor on the board where i found this said, the dean scream is not only taken out of the context but the nature of the technology encourages a certain perspective. the scream as we hear it in the mainstream media is stripped of the crowd noise by the microphones used. this vidcam captures the noise level as it was heard onsite. of course, this is just quibbling. i found nothing wrong with the effort to begin with.
- dave 1-25-2004 5:42 pm [add a comment]
You can't even hear the so-called yawp on that tape. I still strongly disagree with Mark that propaganda is a value-neutral word like "weather" and that the left must use it because the Bushies do. The (mis)use by the right-leaning media of the Dean footage is propaganda. What counters it is contrasting views of the same event like Dave just posted. You fight propaganda with truth--in this case showing how one tape or recording can't be entirely trusted.
- tom moody 1-25-2004 6:11 pm [add a comment]
the last word (until the next last word)
- dave 1-26-2004 6:26 pm [add a comment]
Notice any news media backlash on bloggers. That is media discrediting blog criticisim for over cashing in on a non-story. Lets even accept for a second that the media chose to run with it as a commercial decision or even out of sheer laziness and was not (always) politically motivated.
- bill 1-26-2004 7:39 pm [add a comment]
im not sure what you mean by "over cashing in on a non-story." there was some backlash after iowa over deans inevitablility. i think that billmon article i posted earlier looks at the difference between the more organic nature of the blog news cycle vs the bureaucratic top-down approach employed by major news organizations which fosters a passive information consumer vs an active engaged citizen.
- dave 1-26-2004 8:34 pm [add a comment]
It seemed like I was hearing the conventional press seizing the moment to discredit blogg criticism of the media as biased instead of a serious self examination (of news orginisations going with this non-story). A non-story when viewed in context, the context of the whole speach, the context of circumstances of the speach and the isolation (removal of context) of his voice from the context of the full sound of the room.
- bill 1-26-2004 8:50 pm [add a comment]
i think if its true then a bloggers response would be that they never claimed not to be biased. blogging is about expressing your opinion. its the news organization which profess not to possess a bias that is at issue. whether as you said they are biased in favor of their bottom line rather than explicit partisanship (such as is nearly explicity with fox and conservatives), this ultimately impacts their editorial behavior.
in the past, serious self examination of the media was left to scholars, but as the internet has lowered the barrier for mass media to virtually zero, the blogosphere has now become a focal point for the democratization of criticism, and with it an ability to magnify the many inconsistencies half truths and biases which pervade the media. so if the media are taking a whack at bloggers its only out of fear as their power to control the narrative is being challenged.
journalists are fond of refering to journalism as the first draft of history. they now have a lot of new editors and critics.
- dave 1-26-2004 9:25 pm [add a comment]