Spawn of Rutengourney. If you mated Adam Nagourney, Official Spokesman of Democratic Hand-Wringers, and Jim Rutenberg, the Times' Brent Bozell-approved "media analyst," what would the offspring look like? Well, naturally, it'd look like a hand-wringer worrying at Kerry's weakness in the face of Dear Leader's unstoppable media juggernaut:

Senator John Kerry on Wednesday began what aides said would be an increasingly visible and combative challenge to President Bush, starting with a bus trip through the distressed Midwest and a television advertisement attacking Mr. Bush's Iraq record. ...

The television advertisement and the energized schedule came after two months in which Mr. Bush battered Mr. Kerry in advertisements intended to undercut him while he remained largely unknown to most of the country.

Mr. Kerry's aides repeatedly described Mr. Bush's spending as a waste, contending that voters were not paying attention to the race this long before Election Day.

But two newspaper polls this week found that Mr. Bush had succeeded in raising doubts about Mr. Kerry's credibility and ideology. That finding, coming after three weeks of unwelcome news for Mr. Bush from Iraq and a commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, unsettled many Democrats. Republicans said on Wednesday that Mr. Bush's overwhelming advantage over Mr. Kerry on the issues of terrorism and foreign affairs overrode any concerns voters might have had about the news that has besieged the White House in recent weeks.

"Kerry Opens New Bush Attack, Focusing on Iraq and Economy"

[Notice, by the way, how the rhetoric of objectivity in those last two grafs marks what "Kerry's aides repeatedly" say about the Bush ad campaign as mere assertion, while the Republican counter about "Bush's overwhelming advantage" is assimilated to the reporters' own allegedly factual rebuttal.] Yeah, about those polls ... Nagourneyberg don't have any real interest in them except as they make it possible to reinforce the Approved Kerry Narrative. Which narrative would have less force if it were to acknowledge a few inconvenient facts at the margins, say as the LA Times did:

A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday found Bush leading Kerry, 50% to 44%, among likely voters, while a Washington Post-ABC News Poll of registered voters showed Bush ahead, 48% to 43%. In both cases, the spread between the two candidates fell within the margin of error. Several other polls this month have found Kerry slightly ahead.

"Bush Campaign Spent Monthly Record of $50 Million in March"

This isn't much by way of analysis, but it's a damn sight closer than anything Rutenenburgey offer. For actual thought, check out DemFromCT on Daily Kos here, along with an earlier post by Kos written when the Gallup and ABC polls were announced, and which gives you the gospel:

In the last month, Rasmussen has had Bush between 48 and 42. And he has had Kerry between 48 and 43. That is not a wide spread, and shows that much of the float at this point is not necessarily shifts in popular opinion, but statistical float and the movement of very soft, very unfocused voters. (It's early, remember?)

In addition, Bush has been under 50 percent in the vast majority of polls. The Gallup Poll has Bush over 50, but also has no undecideds. They pushed the leaners strong. And while that type of polling make sense the week before the election, it's less salient a full six months plus before voters hit the booths.

Some juggernaut: Bush has spent $50 million in a month to generate essentially no discernible movement in public opinion. But there's an Approved Narrative in place, and Nagournenberger are servants of the Narrative, not of fact. The next passage from the article shows the degree to which their subservience to the Narrative will take them:

Evidence of Mr. Bush's continued strength renewed questions about the decision by Mr. Kerry's advisers to ignore the Bush attacks for now.

As late as Friday, Mr. Kerry's campaign indicated that he would not begin his national television campaign until next week. Mr. Kerry's campaign announced Wednesday morning that instead, the advertisements would begin on Wednesday. An aide said that there had been no change in the timetable in response to the polls and that the advertisements began as soon as production was completed.

So: the Kerry campaign moved up its ad launch by a few days, because they decided to go when the ads came ready. (Me, I wonder if maybe they were trying to gain a little tactical surprise by jumping the schedule—but what do I know? I'm not a Professional Political Reporter.) And that's all Nagourtenberg need to insinuate desperation, and they're insinuatin' just as hard as they can: there are "renewed questions" in the air! Obviously the Kerry camp is rushing into the breach, hoping to keep intrepid scribes like Rutneybourgey from taking the scent. Arrgh, too late!

In the world according to A1, when the Bush camp announces an attack strategy, it's cause for a fireworks show, copiously annotated with snakish (and usually anonymous) commentary from Republican operatives on the other guy's failings. When Kerry does the same, it's a sign of his inability to find his footing, and occasion for Democrats to question his direction. Because that's the permanent narrative of this campaign, for the Times: Bush strong, Kerry weak. Is Kerry not responding to Bush attacks? He's weak! Is he going on the attack against Bush? Must be trying to shore up his weakness!

posted by michael  6:23:43 PM  
tell me about it []  

 

Block that stereotype! In a mostly straightforward and unobjectionable inner-page report on the release of John Kerry's service records ("Navy Records Show Positive Marks for Kerry"), Kit Seelye nevertheless can't quite manage to resist the lure of a favorite cliché:

The military records offered no hint of atrocities, but repeatedly cited Mr. Kerry's initiative in battle and patrician manner.

"Patrician manner," as should be obvious, is code for everything that Seelye and her Kewl Kids ilk have decided they don't like about John Kerry. As should also be obvious, nowhere in Kerry's evaluations do his commanders use anything like that phrase. What phrases do they use, to prompt Seelye to slip it in about Kerry's suspect class identity?

When Mr. Kerry was an ensign on the Gridley on his first Vietnam tour in 1967, his commander described him as ... "polished, tactful and outgoing" and "a brilliant conversationalist." "He uses the English language expertly, both orally and in writing," the commander wrote. ... "He is a polished diplomat at ease in distinguished company" [another commander wrote] and "is impressive in appearance and always immaculate." ... "He presents a very neat appearance and meets people well," [still another] captain wrote. "For his age and experience, he writes and speaks exceedingly well."

Enough, it's starting to hurt! Kerry as a young man was neat in appearance, polished in manner, and he spoke well—what more do you need to disqualify him from being President?

Yes, this is a minor, passing example of bias; no, the rest of the piece isn't unfair to Kerry. It is, however, bias, and an example of the kind of thoughtless stereotyping that goes on on the press bus (at least when Kit Seelye's along for the ride). It's also the sort of thing that any half-awake editor ought to have noticed and excised from the piece. So how about it, NYT—is keeping your eyes open not part of an editor's job description any more?

posted by michael  3:06:09 PM  
tell me about it []