Matt says
Spencer says
Megan says
keep it in the family

Wait, so you're criticizing journalists for covering the aesthetics and the "positioning."

But Obama just gave a policy speech and you're just covering its aesthetics.

I mean...are you saving the substantive analysis for later or is this a parody?

I don't understand the lust for policy specifics among the wonkier end of the pundit spectrum to being with. Let's face it: you can probably count the presidents who actually implemented a policy that was closely aligned with what they campaigned on on one hand. You make a plan, and then shit happens; hell, Dubya was a surefire one termer until 9/11 turned him into Winston Churchill.

I'm not saying that empty platitudes are appropriate either, but rather something along the lines of: "I want to make health care coverage universal in America. There are several ways we can do this. My preferred option is [A], but there are several other good options, like [B]. As long as a plan covers all Americans and does not banrupt the Treasury, the details are negotiable."

A contest:

Guess which will be more important to the media: Obama's pledge in Feb. 2007 to abide by campaign funding restrictions if his Republican opponent does, or if he abides by his promise to fight for credit card reform once in office.

Bonus question: which one is more important to voters and which one is more important to reporters?

Yeah dude, if only this blog regularly featured policy analysis...

Yeah dude, if only this blog regularly featured policy analysis...

Exactly. Seemed like a strange time for the departure. Especially in light of writing a post evincing the same sins it laments. Meta-ironic hypocrisy or parody at its finest?

Had a nice post defending Ezra and why he didn't need to go into the wonky waters on this particular Obama speech. Then I lost it to the captcha. Boo-urns.

Something to do with the validity of media criticism and the fact that Ezra does whip his wonk out on a semi-regular basis? And that he'd already covered the jobs speech?

A fair defense, even if it does skirt the criticism.

I sometimes wonder if the press appreciates the distinctions between a speech and a press briefing. By all accounts, Obama's speeches, to crowds before him that have assembled to hear him speak, are unusually effective and sometimes moving. He works in references to policies, but rather than lecture his audience, he spends his and their time differently, in an attempt to engage their spirit as well as their intellect. This is simply working. Clinton, and increasingly McCain, are flat-footed and flummoxed by their comparative inability to spark a crowd, begin crowing that Obama has no substance, as if inspiration and substance were mutually exclusive, so effective rhetoric must always be devoid of content.

The truth is Obama has policies a-plenty, he just has a fine sense of time and place, and will not stultify his audience in response to his critics or opponents, nor will he do so to placate reporters and columnists who won't even bother to fire up their neurons to process the much-called for "detail".

Earnest Hemingway has what was called "The Iceberg Theory":

"If a writer of prose knows enough about what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of an iceberg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water."

- Death In the Afternoon, Scribner's, 1932, Chap. 16, 192.

Even as seldom as I comment here, I have learned that before pushing that [Post] button, one is wise to use a or a or otherwise somehow select all of what I've just written, then right-click and choose "copy".

So if the captcha gremlins eat my words (again), I can just paste it into the empty composition box and try again.

Dear Unapologetic Andrew:

Your point: Ezra is criticizing news for its non-substantive coverage of candidate's policy positions but NOT COVERING THE POLICY SPEECH YOU REFER TO SUBSTANTIVELY!

This is a dumb point. Matt and Ezra are making a perhaps-novel observation that the news media is doing bad coverage. That doesn't mean its THEIR job to do the good coverage for them, and that they cannot criticize the media until they do so. Ezra's is a blog; commentary on all things; and not a direct source of news. He has a different responsibility with respect to coverage of politics -- people do not depend on him to know what's happening in the world; they go to his site, probably after knowing the day's headlines, to find analysis of what's going on.

you should apologize to Ezra.

Your point: Ezra is criticizing news for its non-substantive coverage of candidate's policy positions but NOT COVERING THE POLICY SPEECH YOU REFER TO SUBSTANTIVELY!

That's a misstatement of my point. It should read: Ezra began a post by analyzing the aesthetics of an Obama speech. He then criticizes the media for doing the same.

The problem was the set up he used. "[Obama's] message: I'm wonky" and "[the speech] had a lot of policy in it!"

If "the way to figure out if he was talking about policy was...to examine the actual statements he offered and ask some experts how the proffered solutions might fare" then the way to take the media to task for something is not to take them to task for something you did a paragraph prior.

It doesn't outright invalidate the argument, but it certainly detracts from it. And you asking for an apology on his behalf is just trite.

Speaking of policies they aren't going to keep, did you see NAFTA loving Hillary telling voters in WI that she was going to comb through the tax code and make sure no company gets a single dollar in tax breaks who send a job overseas.

Now does anyone believe that the Clinton gang that shoved NAFTA down the Democrats throats and made them swallow it, really is about to undo her husbands claim to fame??

A point that has been elsewhere in comments, and even blogposts I think, but is worth remembering, is that the financial press doesn't do this nonsense.

The Financial Times and WSJ (with the important caveats about the opinion page) don't waste readers time with this. Often the articles are shorter, but contain more useful information and a good sense of how it relates to policy or the economy. I think there are basically two reasons for this: 1. the finanicial press know who their readers are, they know they can handle a few numbers and a simple, but substantive summary of Obama's speech (or whatever), and 2. the journalists tend to focus more on a few areas where they develop some expertise--thus allowing them to better exercise judgement on the speech and its relation to everything else.

Andrew, you might want to ask yourself whether Ezra is a "reporter" or one of the "experts" (on health care) that those reporters should consult.

If you're going to criticize someone for not doing their job, it's appropriate to know what their job actually is.

"..as if inspiration and substance were mutually exclusive, so effective rhetoric must always be devoid of content."

If they are really REALLY good, which I dont doubt in a political sense, they could be using this thinking as well.

It may be an attempt by these campaigns to goad Obama into having a totally wonkish speech, something along the lines that they themselves would do. A sideways attempt to blunt his inspirational tone by forcing him to include statistics and powerpoint (j.k.) into his events. (*gag*)

Of course he has very rarely directly responded to their attacks. Even when he does, he doesnt change style or message really.. so it seems rather pointless.

If you cant beat him, dumb him down. Its worked before.

The hot-sale Ugg Boots are coming now.We offer wide range of colors and styles ugg boots uk and Ugg Boots Sale for you.Shopping now for your favorite!