The Sound of the Crowd

Mark Evanier has a new book out. I have a review of this book. It’s like a law.

And this Political Strategy blog has some advice for John Kerry about tomorow night’s debate. It is:

“Kerry must master the art of the simple.”

We’re screwed.

On his first broadcast since being named heir to the Tonight Show hosts job, which is tonight unless I’m very much mistaken (last night having been a repeat), Conan O’Brien will begin his monolouge with something very like this:

“Got some good news yesterday…I just saved a bundle on my car insurance with Geico.”

Let’s watch.

(In the year 2000…in the year 2000…)

The New Republic Online has an idea for how to fix the debates. “get rid of the moderators and bring in real experts.”

Not a bad idea, really, but I think Greenberg (the author) pulls back a little too far in terms of who he thinks should be brought in. For what it’s worth, here’s who I’d use if they asked me.

A five-person panel, made up of:

One person who’s actually served in a cabinet-level position or higher and is in a position to know the day-to-day process of being president. This person should be the moderator but would also be expected to ask non-partisan, follow-up questions like “Yes, Mr. President, but how would you do this?”

Two columnists who are generally acknowledged to lean Democratic, and two that are generally acknowledged to lean Republican. They can ask questions as partisan as they like.

Why columnists instead of reporters? Because most reporters have on-the-other-handed themselves into irrelevance, whereas columnists are paid to have opinions and develop and present them well.

Wouldn’t you rather hear what questions EJ Dionne, Jr or Joe Conason would ask George W. Bush than Charlie Gibson or even Jim Leher? I know I would. And let’s see what John Kerry would say to questions asked by Pat Buchanan or Jerry Falwell.

Let’s stop kidding ourselves that anyone really believes in non-partisan politicians any more. They’re dead. We can argue over who killed them another time, but let’s stop pretending. In the immortal words of Bruno on The West Wing (ironically played by Bush buddy Ron Silver), let’s have two parties instead of some monolithic, boring mass.

Let’s take sides and ask the questions the country really wants.

Christopher Hitchens tosses mud, but can’t back it up with any data. I don’t know why Hitchens seems to hate Kerry so much–judging from his excessively wordy style, he ought to be writing for him.

Comedy Central responds to O’Reilly. You know, it’s tempting to say someone like oh, say, CBS should just hire the Daily Show team lock, stock and barrel. That wouldn’t actually be a good idea, but man, it’s tempting.

Newspaper endorses John Kerry. Crawford, Texas newspaper endorses John Kerry.

Nevertheless, Poll shows Bush with solid lead. I’ve really really, really really really really got to start drinking more.

And finally (at least for now), but how are people outside New York and DC responding to the Rather thing?

That’s the news, and I am out of here…

Max Headroom. Come on, the guy was all swagger and little or no substance–but he knew it. He reveled in it. Unlike, say, one of the guys in the debate this coming Thursday.

And no doubt, he’d be a lot more fun to watch speak than either of them.

Paul Krugman has an opinion column throwing down a gauntlet to the media on their coverage of the debates.

But what if Bush is elected to a second term?

1. I agree with about 99% of this editorial in the Washington Post about the media. It reminds me of one of my favorite David Lee Roth quotes (say what you will about David Lee Roth, the man was worth his weight in quotes): The bad news is, we’ve lost our way. The good news is, we’re way ahead of schedule!

2. Tapped shows how some news orginizations have fun with headlines.

Or: Hasn’t Florida suffered enough? Apperently not, because they’re about to be the home of another “fair” election.

You know, it must really suck to be a television journalist right about now.

Not only has their failure to adequately question the president in the lead-up to war been made apparent.

Not only has the Rather memo debacle at CBS tarred them all.

But to their evident stunned disbelief–shocked they are, shocked–increasing numbers of young people have been getting their information from late-night comedy shows like, say, The Daily Show. Instead of reliable, “real” news orginizations like Nightline, CNN, or MSNBC. Well, they sniff, all injury and wounded innocence, such couch potatoes can’t possibly be being adequately informed.

Oh yes they can. And now we have data. A new poll by the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey shows that those who have been following the presidental race on The Daily Show: “are more likely to know the issue positions and backgrounds of presidential candidates than people who do not…”

Interestingly enough, the poll also provides evidence that The Daily Show is perhaps the only show on the air that truly can claim to be “fair and balanced.”

“Of the 83 political jokes made by Stewart [in the period surveyed], only 9 specifically targeted Bush. That was 11% of his political jokes. The same number targeted Kerry.”

That’s something I’ve noticed about the show and one of the reasons I have such respect for Stewart and his staff. It’s often been observed that it’s easy to make people laugh if you only hit the other sides guys (see: Dennis Miller’s current career). But if you can make people laugh when you’re hitting their side, that’s a great deal harder. And in the political satire world, I can’t think of anyone we’ve had who was this good at it since Doonesbury and Trudeau. Yes, I love it when Stewart and The Daily Show take their swipes at Bush. But I also think they’ve had some of the funniest swipes at Kerry, which manage to be scathing without having to lie about his Vietnam service or anything.

(My favorite: “John Kerry couldn’t inspire an ice cube to melt in the small of Halle Berry’s back.”)