Saturday, October 30, 2010

Media Rants: Happy Anniversary to (Me)dia Rants

The following piece will appear in the November 2010 edition of The Scene.

Happy Anniversary to (Me)dia Rants

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

The first Media Rants column appeared in the August 2002 issue of The Scene. By my calculation, that makes this November column the 100th (!) rant. When the column debuted, I wasn’t sure I’d have the discipline demanded by 10 rants, let alone 100. But here we are, 8 years later, still trying to shed light on the ways in which corporate establishment media can, in the words of the late and great Madison Capital Times editor Bill Evjue, be “used to reduce the people to conformity and dumb acquiescence.”

Given that the New York Times, Washington Post, regional Gannett tabloids, radio and television outlets, or even alternative web sources aren’t exactly lining up to talk to me about this most momentous anniversary, I guess I’ll have to interview myself. So here’s a retrospective of sorts on the last 99 columns.

Question: How did the Media Rants column get started?

Answer: In the summer of 2002 then SCENE editor Tom Breuer called and asked if I’d be interested in writing for the paper. Back then I wrote a weekly electronic newsletter to accompany a television program called “Commentary” I hosted and produced with my heroes Doug Freshner and Jim Mather. Somehow Tom got on the newsletter email list, and he liked it enough that he thought I might be able to contribute something worthwhile to the Scene. The name “Media Rants” was Tom’s idea. The first column was a critique of the local press’ annual and shameful subservience to the Experimental Aircraft Association.

Question: What writers have influenced your thinking and style?

Answer: All conscientious media critics owe a debt to the late George Seldes. Probably the greatest investigative journalist in American history, Seldes in the 1940s published a newsletter called “In Fact” which is now widely regarded as the prototype for how to expose the shortcomings of the establishment press.

Given that Media Rants is a monthly essay, stylistically I’ve been guided by my favorite essayists. I respect and admire the rebel passion of Thomas Paine, the moral clarity of George Orwell, the principled prose of I.F. Stone, the sheer eloquence of Christopher Hitchens, the wisdom of James Baldwin ("I love America more than any other country in the world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."), the unpredictability of Alexander Cockburn, the stinging humor of Molly Ivins and Maureen Dowd, and the in-your-face rhetorical flourishes of James Howard Kunstler. I’ve disagreed with each of these wordsmiths at various times yet stand in awe at their contributions to the craft of writing.

Question: Do you have any favorite Media Rants columns?

Answer: My favorites are the ones that make at least some minor contribution to our understanding of local history (“Press Coverage of McCarthy” from April of 2006; “Earth Day at 40” from April of 2010; “King Karma: Yesterday and Today” from March of 2003), challenge local and state establishment media to do better (“The Magruder Media’s Ethical Compass” from November of 2002; “Northeast Wisconsin’s Iron Triangle” from August of 2003; “It’s Not a Witch hunt if There’s a Witch” from June of 2004), counter the insane pro-war journalism of the last 8 years (“Will We Hear the Winter Soldiers?” from March of 2008; “Media AWOL on National Guard Coverage” from March of 2009), and take a stand for rational public discourse (“Fighting Reactionary Politics: Real Conservatives, Real Liberals, and Real Radicals Must Work Together” from April of 2005). I also look fondly on the tributes to Robert L. “Doc” Snyder and Doug Boone, and interviews with my friends Curt Andersen, Stephen Richards, Jo Egelhoff, and Ron Hardy.

Question: Most memorable Media Rants moment?

Answer: UW Oshkosh Professor of Political Science James Simmons found the essay “Deconstructing Don Kettl” (July 2004) interesting and asked me to publish a revised version of it in the Wisconsin Political Scientist Newsletter. The essay situated Professor Kettl, formerly of UW Madison and widely recognized as governor Tommy Thompson’s most revered academic, as a symbol of the extent to which UW profs had become tools of power rather than challengers to it. Some of Professor Kettl’s colleagues at UW Madison lambasted Dr. Simmons for publishing the piece, reducing it to nothing more than a cheap-shot personal attack. The irony was that the tone and vacuity of their complaint validated the thrust of the essay better than anything I could have said or written.

Question: What kind of response has Media Rants received over the years?

Answer: Though it’s now conventional wisdom to say “no one reads anything longer than a Facebook wall post anymore,” the fact that Media Rants does have an audience keeps me writing it. When the Appleton Public Library invited me to participate in a debate about the movie “Good Night and Good Luck” in 2006, I was pleasantly surprised at the number of people in attendance who recognized and appreciated the column. Media Rants columns also led to several invitations to lead discussions at the Harmony CafĂ© in Appleton, as well as numerous appearances on Wisconsin Public Radio.

Question: Any final thoughts?

Answer: I just want to thank everyone who has supported Media Rants over the years, especially those readers who take the time to offer constructive feedback. Many thanks also to Scene publisher Jim Moran and current editor Jim Lundstrom for making space every month.

Rant On!

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Happy Anniversary 2 U

Of course, when seeing the words "Happy Anniversary" this springs immediately to mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DINuAWoxy4Q&feature=related

Working To Make A Living said...

"Thompson’s most revered academic, as a symbol of the extent to which UW profs had become "tools" of power rather than challengers to it."

"Tools" is exactly what most Political Science professors are, especially the ones i hear weekly on WPR.

loninappleton said...

I can still hold in my memory some of those columns like the Iron Triangle. And I keep the print copy of The Scene in which "Tribute To Doug Boone" was written as a keepsake of a friend. It is one of the most memorable eulogies I ever heard: "Faces and hands..." Everybody should read the link here on that.

Congratulations, Tony.

Steve Barney said...

Kudos.

BTW, I hope the Wisconsin Green Party will learn something from the Tea "Party". Take note:

The Tea Party is a political party in name only. Instead of getting ballot status and running the horrendous risk of being mere spoilers who turn the election over to their worst major party nightmare, they ran and supported selected candidates in the primaries.

That is the rational way to run a "third party" candidate in an electoral system like ours, where the winner is the candidate with the plurality of the votes, and you may "split the vote."

Forget about ballot status! Just call yourselves the "Green Party", or whatever the case may be, and run your candidate in the primary.
Another advantage of foregoing ballot status may be that you may even be able to support your candidates in a nonpartisan local election in that way, while the ballot status parties may have to remain mum.

If the opposite major party is a very small minority, as the Republican Party apparently is in the City of Madison's 77th State Assembly District (where the Republican candidate received only 18% in a 3-way race involving Green candidate Ben Manski [ http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=31106 ]), then a Green Party ballot may not be too risky, but that is definitely an exception to the rule rather then the norm.

I'm not sure about this, but another advantage for a non-ballot status party may be that such a party could fully support its favored candidates in nonpartisan local elections, while the offically registered major parties with ballot status may be forced to sit it out. (Fact check this one. Don't take my word for it.)

tony palmeri said...

Actually Russ Feingold probably would have won the election had there been a Green Party candidate on the ballot. For a couple of reasons:

1. The Johnson campaign successfully defined Feingold as a "liberal," "leftist," etc. Put a Green Party candidate in that race, and Feingold is then able to position himself as the "centrist" in between the far right (Johnson) and far left (the Green).

2. The major problem for Democrats this year was what's been called the "enthusiasm gap." Put a Green Party candidate in that race, and lots of Dems who stayed home would have come out if only to protect Russ from the evil "spoilers." Plus, the Green candidate would have brought many people to the polls who would have ended up voting for Feingold. (I think political scientists call this the "mobilization effect").

Ultimately we will never know what really would have happened had there been a Green presence on the ballot. What we do know is that neither Feingold nor Barrett can say that their races were "spoiled" by any other party.

Working To Make A Living said...

The major problem for Democrats this year was what's been called the "enthusiasm gap."

That's what everyone seems to be saying. Seems a nice tidy answer. I find that my progressive friends born in America hang on to this notion that somehow the current process can still be used for change. On the other hand, my British, Italian,French and African friends guffaw at the very thought of trying to use our current political process to effect change. hmmmm

Ron said...

Tony - Sorry to hijack this thread! Congratulations!

I would argue that the Green Party has been suffering from an "enthusiasm gap" for years, perhaps since Nader in 2000.

Recognized Political Parties can definitely get involved in local non-partisan races. The Democrats almost always endorse candidates for Oshkosh Common Council. Last year they endorsed two candidates, neither of whom were willing to say that they would not outsource (privatize) public sector jobs. The Democrats will also promote the candidates they endorse by helping them with lit drops. The Greens do the same, they support local candidates and try to help them get elected.

Steve - the difference between the "Tea Party Strategy" is that the Tea Party candidates were incredibly well funded. Senator Jim DeMint used his safe seat to fund Tea Party candidates in several states. Others like Ron Johnson funded themselves. The Green Party does not have those levels of funding sources, therefore would have no impact in the Democrat's primary except maybe to influence the debate (assuming they are invited to debate).

I hear what you are saying, I thought about this as well watching the Tea Party. If alternative political parties only ran in the Democratic and Republican Primaries, then the Democrats and Republicans effectively become "institutionalized", and the primaries become essentially play-offs, and the public no longer owns the electoral process. But maybe that has happened already. Only legislatures can change electoral systems, and only Democrats and Republicans are in legislatures, therefore why would they reform the electoral system in a way that would jeopardize their hold on power?

tony palmeri said...

Not sure I understand Steve's point here: "The Tea Party is a political party in name only. Instead of getting ballot status and running the horrendous risk of being mere spoilers who turn the election over to their worst major party nightmare, they ran and supported selected candidates in the primaries."

Looking at the recent elections, it appears that in the US Senate the exact OPPOSITE happened. Tea Party candidates in Delaware (O'Donnell), Nevada (Angle), and Colorado (Buck)ended up costing the Republicans control of the US Senate. The New York Times has an excellent front page story today (Sunday) suggesting that Tom Harkin's (D-Iowa) chairmanship of a key Senate committee is literally the only thing standing if the way of a complete dismantling of Obamacare. Since repeal of the Obamacare "nightmare" is one of the key planks of Tea Partydom, the strategy of running candidates in the Republican primaries now effectively prevents repeal from taking place.

In my last post I indicated how Feingold could have won had there been a Green Party candidate on the ballot. Even more exciting would have been had he actually RUN as a Green Party candidate (the Greens invited him to join the Party after his PATRIOT Act vote.).

Think about it: had Feingold left the Dems to announce a run on the Green ticket, the Dems would have then nominated some kind of corporate toad to run. The toad and Johnson would have split the vote, and Feingold could have snuck back in. Results could have been something like this:

Johnson (R): 34%
Joe Toadie (D):30%
Feingold (G): 36%

Actually 2010 would have been a great time to try such a strategy: Feingold historically has been as critical of the Dems as he was/is of the GOP, and such a switch would have been consistent with his "maverick" label. True, he would have been more open to the charge of being a "leftist," but I don't think that voters this year were as peeved at the "left" as much as the Democrats.