FIRST POSTED ‘MIDNIGHT AT THE OASIS;’ UPDATED 7 AM WITH MORE OF YOUR COMMENTS.

WHO WON?

RATE THE DEBATE

BUSH UNFILTERED

They called it a debate but it felt at times to me more like a joint appearance with few spontaneous exchanges or direct confrontations. In many ways it showed how our political discourse has moved to the right with winning the war in Iraq a shared conviction even as they disagreed on the strategy to do so. To the unrepresentative sample in my living room — two foreigners imposing the very “global test” that the right will use as a buzzword to bludgeon Kerry, the challenger was the victor.

“At first,” one of my guests told me, “I thought Bush was in the lead because he was congenial, made better eye contact with the camera and seemed to have a simpler message that Americans could relate to. But as the debate proceeded, Bush’s certainty seemed to fade as Kerry pounded him with specific criticisms of a kind he rarely has to confront” True, enough, Bush began to smirk and hesitate, drawl and deflect. He looked uncomfortable as Kerry stayed on the attack.

SCORING IT FOR KERRY

Britain’s Guardian and many newspapers nationwide said they thought the there was more of an exchange than they expected given the constrictive rules. They also scored it for the Democratic challenger. “John Kerry won the first televised presidential debate against Republican President George Bush late on Thursday, according to instant polls. A Gallup poll for CNN gave Kerry a 46% to 37% win over the president. It added that 46% of those asked now have a better opinion of Kerry against 21% for Bush.”

The New York Times pronounced it a real debate: “In the end, it was a real debate: sharp and scrappy, just what the nation seemed to yearn for during a wartime election campaign.” Note the words: “Seemed to year for”

Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix called it a draw:

“KERRY WON. But Bush wasn’t bad. Thus the first debate between the two major-party presidential candidates ended essentially in a draw. John Kerry was far more crisp and articulate than George W. Bush, but Bush got his points across, and made the best case he could for the war in Iraq.

“My first impression was that Kerry was considerably better than Al Gore four years ago - but that Bush was also much better than he was in 2000. Yes, Bush fumbled and paused and looked down, and got a little peevish somewhere around the 30-minute mark. But if we’ve learned anything in the past four years, it’s that no one but us Bush-bashers cares.

KERRY BOUNCED WITH THE UNDECIDEDS

So it comes down, essentially, to what those elusive undecided voters are looking for. Polls still show a great deal of discontent with Bush’s presidency. If voters were looking for a reason to switch to Kerry, then it doesn’t matter how Bush fared tonight. All that matters is that Kerry came across as presidential and in control. But Bush, Dick Cheney, and company have succeeded in making this election as much about Kerry as Bush, which means that it’s become almost a two-incumbent race. That would tend to negate any big boost Kerry might have otherwise gotten tonight.”

www.bostonphoenix.com/medialog

WHAT THEY AGREED ON

At the same time, one had a sense that these two men agree on more than they acknowledge. And that includes misleading information. The NY Times put it this way yesterday: “no “stark choice” exists between George Bush and John Kerry — at least regarding the Iraqi “situation. My partner Rory O’Connor makes this point in his blog:

“Case in point: Bush and Kerry — and American puppet aka Iraqi leader Iyad Allawi — are in total agreement that foreign terrorists are pouring into Iraq. So what if virtually all US military intelligence analysts hotly dispute this communal assertion!

“Like most good stories these days, this one has been largely ignored by the MSM — with the notable exception of Mark Mazzetti in The Los Angeles Times. In an article datelined September 28, Mazzetti accurately noted that “The insistence by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and many U.S. officials that foreign fighters are streaming into Iraq to battle American troops runs counter to the U.S. military’s own assessment that the Iraqi insurgency remains primarily a home-grown problem.”

www.roryoconnor.org/blog/

Journalist Greg Palast saw it as

“Mr. Tall versus Mr. Small: “In Iraq, “We don’t have enough troops there,” said the tall one. Really, Senator? We should send MORE? Not exactly: Mr. Tall’s got a plan to get our troops out. He’ll have a big meeting of “allies,” and after he talks with them, they will all jump up and volunteer to send THEIR kids to Fallujah. France and Indonesia and Kuwait can’t wait to ship in soldiers and extra body bags. Right. We love you, John, but there’s no band of Hobbits coming to the rescue — that’s just a movie.

“Well, he looked kind of “presidential.” But given the line-up includes Nixon, Ford and two Bushes, that’s not a big trick.

” . . . if you look at presidential debates the way the media plays it, as something akin to Olympic figure skating, where you score for the competitor’s style, you could say Kerry won.

“But I don’t feel WE won anything.”

FACTS VERSUS IMPRESSIONS

This “debate” did not turn on facts. It was about impressions. Kerry’s main job was to reconvince the Democratic faithful that he was a strong candidate and could win. And he seemed to do that even as many media prognosticators predicted that it was a do or die moment for his campaign. His “success” will keep the money coming in.

I find myself judging this as a media performance — not an issue oriented battle — which of course was what it was. Both men had prepared key talking points, slogans, buzz phrases and messages and and rolled them out, repeating phrases again and again, and recapitulating positions. If Kerry won, it was because he seemed to make fewer mistakes, and came off as more of an in-charge leader. Bush, in contrast, was better informed on some of the details even as the more complex the issues like bi-lateral versus multi-lateral talks on Korea triggered, a “MEGO effect.” MEGO means “My eyes glaze over.” That’s what happened to TV Viewers when AL Gore went on and on about his superior knowledge and came off as Mr Smart Guy to Bush’s Mr. Nice Guy. This time around, Kerry stayed with key points for the most part, criticizing the war for being wrong and incompetently planned. He did not challenge the neo-con world view.

REALITY TV

John Hanchette, writes in Editor & Publisher that “The formats of presidential debates increasingly resemble the high-concept scripts of the dummied up reality shows on television.

www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20021/

PBS’s Jim Lehrer, brought a bus man’s stoicism to his questioning. (He is a collector of memorabilia about buses) He was his usual polite and predictable middle of the road self , never ruffling the protagonists with questions that really challenged them, I could believe his assertion that he came up with the questions himself.

Afterwards, I found the CBS analysis of what issues played with 2000 uncommitted voters of interest they surveryed of interest. Their confidence in Kerry went up. I was surprised to find Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, a Bush backer voicing disappointment with the president’s position on Fox. Ditto for Mort Kondracke. Amazing: Foxies turning on Bushies . . . I was impressed by Joe Biden’s ability to turn the flip-flopper charge against Bush on MSNBC and do it effectively and with a smile.

SPINNING THE SPIN

Both parties mobilized their supporters to get into the spin operation. DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe summoned Democrats to battle writing:

” We need your online help immediately after the debate, so save this email, print it out, and have it ready with you as you watch the first Presidential debate tonight. We all know what happened in 2000. Al Gore won the first debate on the issues, but Republicans stole the post-debate spin. We are not going to let that happen again, and you will play a big role. Immediately after the debate, we need you to do three things: vote in online polls, write a letter to the editor, and call in to talk radio programs. Your 10 minutes of activism following the debate can make the difference”

THE GOP GAME PLAN

In many ways this was a response to what the Republicans were planning as described on investors.com “The Bush campaign has set up a network of Web sites to carry instant analysis of tonight’s debate.

“The “Debate Feed” will provide the GOP spin in real time to as many as 5,000 conservative Web outlets, according to Wired News. “Our rapid response effort is based on the premise that no attack or no misstatement will go unchallenged,” Michael Turk, director of the Internet campaign, told the Web site. A “war room” is outfitted with 15 computers and two TVs, monitored by two dozen staffers, ready to send out a Republican response or comment, Wired added.

The Kerry campaign is not so well organized. It has e-mailed supporters who work with local newspapers and media, telling them the Kerry campaign will provide a response after the debate, Wired reported.

MANY RATED THE DEBATE

Mediachannel wanted your assessment. Tim Karr wrote yesterday, “while pollsters and pundits concentrate on how to spin the candidates’ performances in Miami tonight, MediaChannel.org and the Tyndall Report have created the Citizens Debate Scorecard so viewers can respond in real-time to the format of the presidential debate and the performance of the media moderator.

Andrew Tyndall assessed the results:

“The decision to devote so many questions to the War in Iraq was the biggest controversy arising from the first Presidential Debate of Campaign 2004 in Miami last night. A majority of supporters of John Kerry agreed that Iraq was given the appropriate amount of attention. A minority of George Bush’s supporters called the Iraq emphasis “just right.” Most of those who disagreed said Iraq was overemphasized.

“These are the results of an interactive Citizens Scorecard organized by MediaChannel.org. It assembled a panel of more than 2,800 volunteers to rate the quality of the format of the debate. Was the right amount of time devoted to the most important National Security and Foreign Policy issues? Were various personal attributes of the two candidates properly addressed? Did moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS do a good job?

“Kerry supporters in the Citizens Scorecard panel were more positive about the debate than Bush supporters: more rated it helpful in learning about their own candidate’s stance on issues (77% v 62% for Bush supporters); and about their opponent’s stance (23% v 16%); more said it helped them decide how to cast their vote (37% v 20%); and more said their man won (96% v 70%).

“The decision to make Iraq dominate the debate made it seem relevant and informative to the Kerry supporters in our panel,” commented media analyst Andrew Tyndall of ADT Research, who devised the scorecard and interpreted the results. “Bush supporters, by contrast, found the debate fell short in examining the candidates’ values and beliefs . . . .

“Fully 47% of the Bush supporters reported that they watched the debate on Fox News Channel. No channel attracted more than a quarter of Kerry supporters. MediaChannel.org plans to repeat its Scorecard for the remaining debates. “Let’s hope that more Republicans decide to participate next time,” Tyndall added. “Perhaps Fox can help our recruiting efforts.”

www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert264.shtml

TOM DISPATCH ON BUSH

“Just turning on the debate tonight, I felt like I had been consigned to some circle of Hell. A completely circumscribed hour and a half in the company of the two people I’d probably least like to hear from at present . . . . One irony did strike me as I watched a rare only half-controlled Bush performance where he did not look like his usual relaxed, folksy self: The Republicans love to denounce Hollywood, but they have proved the most fabulous purveyors of fiction and seductive imagery in our recent political history. Reagan may have been our official actor-president, but George has been much underestimated for his ability to act out both the roles of “George Bush” and of the President. Even the debate agreement document itself, all 32 pages of it, had the detail of a Hollywood agent’s contract with a big studio — and Bush family consigliere James Baker was that agent.

“Normally surrounded by blanketing ’security,’ the President’s campaign road events — with their carefully reserved tickets, their choreographed chants and softball questions, their air of private theatrical performances only open to invited (or paying) guests — have all the easy, repetitive smoothness of a Little Mermaid-like stage show at Disneyland. Far more than in any other campaign of our lifetime, the Bush campaign, until tonight, has really been a fabulously successful cartoon version of politics, buffered from any reality whatsoever. Unscripted realities have generally been kept well out of sight in blocked off protest zones and when anyone has crashed the campaign’s space — anyone, that is, wearing the wrong t-shirt or protesting in any way — that person has almost instantly been airbrushed away. Who else has ever created such a self-enclosed political universe, so — as everyone likes to say — “on message”? (And imagine that, at any given moment, there are not one but two performances taking place — the second being a carefully coded set of signs and signals for the President’s fundamentalist Christian audience.) . . . ”

WHAT ABOUT “THE FACTS” IN THE DEBATE?

Before the debate, FAIR warned:

“While fact-checking is an essential media function, particularly during an election year, it’s a hollow exercise if journalists start with the assumption that both sides must be found equally guilty of falsehoods. It is, in fact, not always the case that both campaigns are responsible for deceptive claims to the same degree; coverage that insists on a false even-handedness, while pretending to expose political mendacity, actually gives cover for it by neutralizing criticism with the “they all do it” defense. Such coverage may protect news outlets from charges of bias, but it does a disservice to voters.”

John Kerry challenged President Bush for saying “The enemy” attacked us implying it was Iraq . . . .The number of Iraqi soldiers and police that have been trained and are combat ready are far fewer that Bush claimed, according to a new study:

“A key element of the current US strategy in Iraq, the training of Iraqi forces, is still proceeding too slowly, a new report by a US think-tank says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3702676.stm

Bush kept referring to former CIA agent Allawi as the Prime Minister of Iraq as if he had been elected. He wasn’t. He is the interim prime minister. He referenced, as did Kerry Allawi’s recent speech as if it was his own. Who wrote it?

ICH: “Lawmaker expresses ‘dismay’ that White House allegedly wrote Allawi speech:

“I want to express my profound dismay about reports that officials from your administration and your reelection campaign were ‘heavily involved’ in writing parts of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi’s speech,” California Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote in a letter to President George W. Bush.

http://207.44.245.159/article6987.htm

The Washington Post reported:

” . . . administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the prime minister was coached and aided by the U.S. government, its allies and friends of the administration. Among them was Dan Senor, former spokesman for the CPA who has more recently represented the Bush campaign in media appearances. Senor, who has denied writing the speech, sent Allawi recommended phrases. He also helped Allawi rehearse in New York last week, officials said. Senor declined to comment.”

WHILE WE WERE WATCHING

There was an orgy of blood in Iraq with US forces claiming 94 insurgents dead in Samarra . . . Bomb blows up at ceremony underscoring instability . . . Dozens of children killed too . . . .Israel sent tanks to invade Gaza again, 3 dead . . . a terrorist bombing blew up mosque in Pakistan . . . Dr. Laura, the right wing radio talk show host claimed killings in Iraq intended to elect Kerry: “Dr. Laura: “We have insurgents, terrorists, Muslim terrorists in Baghdad murdering children to make sure Kerry’s elected”. Tony Blair’s heart began to race — and he is now “in hospital” as the Brits say, for a tune-up. This development confirms that he does have a heart for those who wondered.

MEDIA NEWS

In the UK, an ominous story. The British regulatory agency OFCOM is propsing a new public broadcast outlet to compete with the BBC . . . one more effort to undercut its market share . . . More on this next week.

The NY Sun reports:

“Starr Emerges as Key Lawyer for N.Y. Times

“As the New York Times gears up for what it argues is a First Amendment fight to stop federal prosecutors from learning the identities of two reporters’ confidential sources, the paper is enlisting a surprising ally.

“The Times, which is suing Attorney General Ashcroft in federal court in Manhattan, has retained Kenneth Starr, the former special prosecutor who, in years past, was a darling of the right and felt the sting of the paper’s editorials.

“Mr. Starr is teamed up with the New York lawyer Floyd Abrams, a veteran First Amendment lawyer, to block a federal prosecutor at Chicago from obtaining phone records of reporters Philip Shenon and Judith Miller. The two reporters covered national-security issues following the September 11 terrorist attacks.”

CENSORSHIP IN THE UK

David Miller sends along this item:

” The mother of the late Gordon Gentle, killed earlier this year in Iraq, has become the focus of a Ministry of Defense (MoD) censorship notice issued to the British media and obtained by SpinWatch. Having discovered that her son’s life could have been spared had standard issue countermeasures been available to his regiment she highlighted this in coverage of the story. The absence of counter-measures also forms the basis of the legal action against the MoD launched by the Gentle family.

http://tinyurl.com/52np5

EJC: PRESS CRISIS IN FRANCE

Faced by a collapsing readership, plummeting advertising revenue and new competition from free-sheets and the Internet, France’s national newspapers are going through their worst crisis in decades and fears are growing that closures may be inevitable, according to the website Editors Weblog and press agency AFP. By European standards, the French market has long suffered from miserable circulation figures and seen sales slump in recent months, and today nearly all the great Paris titles, including Le Monde, Liberation, France-Soir and L’Humanite, are reporting severe financial difficulties”

YOUR LETTERS.

George J Miller:

“I saw the debate. Both sides scored points. No clear winner, although it was revealing of both characters and positions. Kerry took the offensive more, going after Bush’s actions and the questions were focused that way too. Bush demonstrated strong convictions and leadership, but the debate format didn’t lend itself to help determine which positions were most valid. You’ll all have to make those decisions on your own. I’m sure the media will try to tell us what to think. The hell with ‘em. I wish there was more real debate in day to day politics, instead of exchanging sound bites and polarized positions.

AJ Rowley writes from Canada:

“Salutations once again Danny the Diligent,

“I wrote in around the time of the Republican National Convention and would like to thank you for posting my letter! I’ve chosen the word “diligent” in this letter since many of your readers/critics/random right wing wackos have chosen to alliterate their own version of “Danny the Dissector.” While this must be belligerently irksome at this point I feel it is still apt and would like to A: Congratulate you on your continued defence of the word Journalist through your actions and dedication to the field, and B. To thank you for taking time out of your life to provide so many of us who still wish to use our minds and think for ourselves with an intellectual forum to express ourselves. Please continue to do so and don’t for a minute let those who have decided NOT to think for themselves bother you.

“While watching the debates tonight I realized something interesting, which was either a matter of coincidence or planned brilliance. I think most people who watched the debate would admit Kerry came out the victor, anyone who might disagree with this assessment should Google the alcoholics anonymous twelve steps program, I believe they can begin with the first one; denial.”

Marion Millin:

“Missed the first minutes of the debate. Turned on the car radio. Heard Kerry delivering a confident answer on Bush’s War. Dubya’s response: “Ya can’t be President ifn ya gonna say Wrong War Wrong Place Wrong Time.” And I KNEW! That Was All He Had! The next 60 minutes proved me right. Bushie kept hurling his bumpersticker statements, but they didn’t stick.

“Hatemongers accuse liberals of hatemongering. Flip floppers accuse the candidate of flip flopping. Doublethinkers accuse the opposition of Mixed Messages. Bush even messed it up, accusing JK of “mexed missages.”

“No matter how the spinapallooza paints it, we saw the real picture: Dubya’s sweaty five o’clock shadow grew darker by the frame. John Kerry wasn’t orange — he basked serenely in a Kennedy-esque golden glow.”

Wendy Meremark:

“The winner tonight is the Deaniac — Farentheit 911 - MoveOn - Al Franken - Media Matters - bloggellectuals team which stopped the FOXzi - rightist radio - NY.WSJ.Times team from rearranging body parts with their usual free hand, in a dark basement, where they start in to do a post mortem and come out with a stitched-together Frankenstein candidate.

“This time Kerry ran on Bush’s record, and Bush ran on.

“Plain as day, in broad daylight, for all to see, the bandwidth of the internet makes every channel-headed spin-person too conspicuous to sneak their poison into the media sugar-water.

“Kerry is your lead. Bush is your lead on drugs. Bush’s mouth tics and jumpy poses are beyond standard deviance, The Fright House pill pharmacy must have him on personality-support. uh, uh, . . . maxed missages.”

Tom Lewis:

“Kerry stopped the bleeding tonight, reassured his base, and did the most difficult and most important thing for a challenger: he differentiated himself clearly from the incumbent. Whether he converted any undecideds won’t be clear but he made himself a viable alternative to Bush in foreign policy, the area of Bush’s greatest perceived strength. Bush didn’t lose any supporters but Kerry showed that he can lead his base rather than making his base feel bad about their choice. ”

Lynne Glasner:

“Reading through some of the post-debate debris I realized that people equate withdrawing troops and disengaging from Iraq with a ‘loss.’ The association made is that of ‘loser’ - a label no one in our modern, competitive society finds complementary. The new political spin Bush is trying to pin on Kerry is that his plan is to walk away from Iraq and ‘lose’ the war on terror - ipso facto he’s a loser and America/Americans will be losers as well. It’s a crafty bit of innuendo. “Loser” has replaced the much-maligned label “liberal.” Yet the military ‘loss’ is misplaced. We have lost blood and treasure; we have lost respect. Turning that around through a sound policy of collaboration and leadership is victory for everyone, not loss.”

Joseph writes

“Today’s excursion into media analysis, on the eve of the first presidential debates, will be called “The Riddle of Bandar.” In backgrounding the facts for this essay, I see that some TV coverage has come from Frontline (tougher) and Tim Russert’s “Meet the Press” which was only apparently tough. My eyes were really opened when I read Craig Unger’s “House of Bush; House of Saud.” However, I will rearrange some of the facts in Unger’s book, to highlight a pattern of the current war in Iraq which is truly a vicious circle. Once done, it will be apparent how little the media has covered this set of events.

“The clue to this pattern is how things have been arranged so that someone influential — the power elites — manage to make money on all phases of the war without getting their hands dirty.

” First, someone makes money on the bombing. Unger notes that the Carlyle Group, the private equity firm which ex-President George Herbert Walker Bush gave paid talks for (and resigned, apparantly because it became a political embarassment) had interests in United Defense, the same company that makes Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and for the first Gulf War the US used about 2,000 of them (p. 169). This helps the Saudis fulfill their wish to keep more of Saudi money in their own country, and, once they have seen Carlyle Groups potential for profit, Carlyle Group offered the Saudis equity in the Carlyle Fund (p. 167).

” Now — this is my observation — the Saudis have a shareholder interest in U.S. defense contracts, and so a financial stake in profiting off conflict. Indirectly, of course, they apparantly hope to profit without upsetting their own hold on power. This is the first half of the vicious circle . . . ..

Evan Coyne Maloney:

“Much has been written about the forged documents scandal at CBS News, and many have argued convincingly that the episode showed that Internet-based opinion-and-news outlets are now legitimate media powers in their own right. But I think it may signal something else as well: the notion of “objective reporting” — an ideal that I don’t think is really achievable — could become obsolete.”

“WE’RE THERE!

Barbara Proctor writes:

” In the Vast Wasteland, Newton Minow predicted that presidents (officials) would be elected not by their concepts and ideas; but by media consultants that the electorate never heard of. It has taken four decades; but we’re there!”

TV WORTH WATCHING

“Chat the Planet: Baghdad 2-Way” Premieres on MTV Monday, October 4th at 6:30PM (ET/PT)

In Iraq on September 14th, there were:
10 car bombings
57 Iraqis killed
3 American soldiers died

“And on that same day in Baghdad, just blocks from those two car bombings, a handful of young Iraqis sat down to talk via satellite with a group of young Americans from Kent State Ohio. They discussed hard-hitting subjects like life, war, democracy and the upcoming presidential election.

www.chattheplanet.com

Share your comments by writing: dissector@mediachannel.org