The Main Stream Media reporting on the Gingrich-Kerry debate : from the worst to the best.

[Mass]

Two politicians actually debating on current issues, exchanging ideas and not attacks. You could think that this is a rare enough event that the media would actually report and comment on it.


Two main points in this debate:

- Gingrich admitting the Inhoffe was wrong and that global warming was man-made and dangerous- Granted: Inhoffe is probably the last dinosaur not to believe in global warming, but I guess there has to be a last dinosaur in every crisis - However I wonder how many times the media would have played a scene where Kerry states Boxer is wrong!).

- a clear presentation of two different visions of how to solve the crisis: the "laisser-faire" conservative philosophy held by Newt (give us lofty tax breaks and the market will take care of it, which is I guess the philosophy that led to the Great Depression), and the more classically progressive vision presented by Kerry (the government needs to set the standards and the right incentives, then the market will take care of it, probably closer to the New Deal philosophy).

So, how did the media report on that:

The bad news is that, as far as I could see, the cable and broadcast TV channels did not. No 30 seconds soundbytes, I guess, that they could have inserted... Or, may be Larry Berkhead being the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby and the nth clip on Don Imus was more important. The fact is that, even on our local newsmedia here in MA, our junior senator debating with a conservative icon about global warming was not deemed of interest.

The print media seem to have been more receptive to the event. AP had his own report, which was reproduced by most papers, starting by the Herald" Kerry, Gingrich debate global warming.

The worse came with an absolutely inept article in the Washington Post written by no other than Dana Milbank: Kerry and Gingrich Hugging Trees -- and (Almost) Each Other - No comment, there is another thread about it.

Some other papers decided to all have their reporting:

The LATimes: Kerry, Gingrich agree on global warming, disagree on solutions

The Chicago Tribune : Warmth prevails at climate debate - Gingrich, Kerry spar on how to fix problem (which spends more time talking about the supposed inadequacies of the speakers than about the debate by itself)

The Boston Globle, which surprisingly, titled on Gingritch: Gingrich drops skepticism on global warming
The Denver Post Wire Services: http://currentargus.com/ci_5637359">Kerry and Gingrich debate remedy for global warming

The best surprisingly comes from the McClatchy media (even though envelopped by a lot of snark), which recognizes that such a debate on ideas is fairly rare these days:

But in fairness, both brought to the debate - sponsored by New York University's John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress - attributes that typically aren't seen in the slick recitation of party-sponsored talking points that generally passes for debate in Washington, D.C:

-Ideas buttressed by facts.

- A willingness to recognize the limitations of rigid ideologies.

- An interest in listening as well as speaking.

- Quick wits and quicker minds.

And the Washington Times has, comparatively to the rest of the media, a comparatively good reporting
Gingrich, Kerry debate fix for climate change

Conclusion: the media complain there is no ideas debate among pols anymore, but, when there is one, they do not recognize it and spend half of their reporting on unrelated facts.

[Mass]

1. I take it back - CNN has an editorial and Blitzer talked about it as well.

Of course not to talk about facts, but about unrelated issues.

Gingrich vs. Kerry: Shoot-out at the climate change corral

• Gingrich says incentives should be used to reduce carbon emissions
• Kerry: Waiting on market like saying 'Enron, you take over the pensions' for U.S.
• Gingrich, Kerry exchanged words at climate change debate in Washington

[karynnj]

3. Although less snarky, this is as biases as the Millbank article

This article actually distorts Kerry's position - pushing him more to a standard Democratic position. It ignores that he also wanted the incentives and the entrepreneurship that Gingrich is speaking of along with the caps.

What is scary is as few people actually heard Kerry's 2004 position, Gingrich is in a position to take the most appealing part of it and add the anti government no caps part and have a very good POLITICAL position. They could even follow Kerry"s example of linking it to jobs, health etc. (Kerry did not emphasize caps in 2004 - and Luntz spoke of how well that part scored.)

I guess the good thing is we would get some movement in the right direction on this - but it could be bad for the Democrats if a Gingrich (or Guilliani or McCain) could take (or even tie) on this issue. Remember McCain worked on increased CAFE standards with a tall Senator - it was in 2001, but he can still contrast to no improvement in the Clinton years. (Maybe that wing of the party should have pushed for Kerry and Gore)

[Mass]

4. This is why the democrats must continue to explain their philosophical differences with

Republicans.

One of the basic things that came out of the debate was that there was real philosophical differences: Kerry does not believe in the "let the market do it" argument. He understands that the governement has to be involved and to lead. Yes, he may be for incentives, but as incentives to follow a plan, not as incentives to do whatever they like. This is why I do not think the headlines is that misleading. Governement has a role to play other than being a milkcow for all special interests.

I think the Democrats put themselves at a serious disadvantage when the try to downplay these differences. If the issue is just that some Republicans are scumbags, why should we not vote for a Republican who is not a scumbag? There is more to the question: even honest Republicans have a different view of how they deal with things and who they stand for compared to what Democrats should stand for. If Dems refuse to play that up for a " let's compromise for the sake of compromising" approach, people cannot see the difference.

In a way, this debate should be shown as an example, because, while there was no smackdown, the philosophical differences between the two debaters were laid out very clearly.

[ginnyinWI]

9. CNN reported, but they mocked it.

They gave a brief summary of what the debate was about, but at the end, Bob Franken said some comment like, "Kerry and Gingrich--it's getting pretty desperate when we only have something like this to report on!" I'm paraphrasing but that was the gist of it. Two "has-beens" doing a pathetic display of how much power they don't have. ARGHH! That made me so mad!

[beachmom]

10. That's not just an insult to them, but to us, too. So individuals

don't have any power, eh? First of all, Kerry is a senator and Newt is still quite influential on the Republican party. Secondly, they have ideas and have something to say, having a bigger megaphone than most in this country. Third, every citizen has some power if they want to use it.

MSM elitists can go shove it.

[ginnyinWI]

11. when you think about the crap they DO report on--

well I guess irony is lost on them. "Who's Nichol's baby's daddy?" I guess that must rank as so much more important than any discussion about the future of our planet!

[karynnj]

12. Yet the rest of the Blitzer show was mostly the Imus story

which I think took up at least half the show.

As to has been - someone needs to knock down these media people. Kerry is a prominent senior Senator, who has done more in his life than Blitzer even dreampt of doing in his. (Also odd that Dole is a senior statesman, but Kerry a "has been")

[Mass]

2. Bloggers reported too - and of course their reporting was better than the media

Bill Scher, from Liberal Oasis and Common Sense, largely focused on Gingrich's take on the issue, but granted some praise on Kerry's framing of the question (it is so rare to see that that it is worth saying)

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/newt_tries_shift_global_warming_debate

...
Newt also derided a firm cap on carbon emissions as a “bureaucracy and litigation” strategy. Kerry quickly rejected the false frame, noting that the same claims were lobbed at sulfur dioxide caps, and were proven wrong.

Kerry rightly noted that without our government to “set a standard,” and put a price on carbon pollution, we won’t get the job done:

The major CEOs … say they need the cap set, in order to give the marketplace the certitude and the incentive, for people to put the money in, and have a long-term capital investment that’s worthwhile.
...

Blue Climate has its take also:
http://www.blueclimate.com/blueclimate/2007/04/the_john_kerryn.html

This debate was one of the more enjoyable ones on this subject that I have seen. It was made that way in large part because Kerry and Gingrich did not spend time with pointless arguments over whether global warming was occuring and whether it was caused by humans. As one would expect, John Kerry made the case that climate change science is in and that it is urgent that we address the problem. In fact, the urgency of the issue was a point he repeatedly returned to. More surprising was Newt Gingrich's general agreement with Kerry on state of the science. In fact, when John Kerry asked him what Gingrich would say to skeptics like Senator Inhofe, Gingrich said that the science is well enough established that we should accept it.

The major disagreement between them was about the fastest way to solve the climate change problem. I will discuss that below but first it was also evident that, despite the fact that both Kerry and Gingrich accept the science, they have different starting points when discussing solutions.
...

As did Grist, focusing on Gingrich's change of mind on the issue:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/10/114741/704

John Kerry and Newt Gingrich squared off on climate change this morning. The result? Gingrich committed to the statement that something needs to be done and distanced himself from partisan brethren like Inhofe. He also dropped a line about a need for some "green conservatism."
...

And we have all seen the reports by Think Progress, with Gingritch agreeing that Inhoffe is wrong.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/10/gingrich-kerry-inhofe/

[wisteria]

5. I give up on CNN, they are awful any more. They do nothing but attack people

and do suggestive reporting instead of reporting the facts.

I still have to get through some of the other articles.

Thanks for posting.

[beachmom]

6. Thanks for the thread, Mass.

I'm not really going to read all the links (especially the snarky WP) because I actually watched the real debate and know what happened.

1. Kerry's ideas won. It really doesn't matter WHICH MAN won. The question is whose ideas won. Kerry was far more prepared for the debate than Gingrich getting into a lot of specifics. However, Gingrich did very well, and I was impressed with him.

2. One of Kerry's best arguments against Newt's market only strategy which would consist of large tax cuts -- "Newt wants government to pay for it". That's exactly right. Kerry's ideas consist of a balance of sticks and carrots, whereas Newt's is only carrots. Well, it's ridiculous that WE THE TAXPAYERS have to fork out all the costs of global warming. The Democrats should use this argument as putting the anti-tax rhetoric of the right on its head. Kerry's position is of balance between industry and American taxpayers (which ultimately, if government has this new expense, it will mean taxes), whereas Newt's approach will put everything on American taxpayers. That is fundamentally unfair.

3. I think that Kerry should have also discussed the highway system and railroads, and electrifying America as Grand Plans that NEVER could have been done without the federal government. He did talk about how volunteerism has never solved an environmental problem, but was left open for refutation by his own book which included activists who did fight environmental problems. How he can prevent that is explaining that reducing carbon emissions is a BIG GRAND PLAN for which volunteerism is insufficient to stop it. Later he mentioned that we've been in volunteerism mode on global warming since 1992 and it hasn't worked. That argument was excellent, but I really think he should talk about the history of other great transitions for which the federal government led the effort but was in partnership with industry.


I just don't care what those numbskulls in the MSM think. I watched the debate on CSPAN, completely unedited, and just like that Iraq debate on the Senate floor that JK and John Warner had, I learned so much, and understood what each side was saying. I think Newt's worries about "regulation and litigation" are real worries Americans have, so Kerry's arguments were very helpful in explaining why it doesn't have to be that extreme.

[Mass]

7. I would agree with you that it does not matter except for one thing.

Whether we like it or not, most people get their news from the MSM, either reading one paper or watching TV news, when it is not by wathching the Daily Show.

Most people do not have the opportunity to seat thru a 2 hour debate, even less a two hour debate at 10 am on a Tuesday Morning.

So, the media coverage makes it even more difficult to talk about issues. Kerry is right: he spoke about the environment at nearly every rallye. The media simply ignored it to focus on the 30 seconds soundbytes, how thick his hair is, and the color of his tie (not that it is not important :evilgrin:).

[beachmom]

8. But you know -- I was talking with a conservative friend of mine

yesterday, and we were in total agreement that the pundits on TV and in the press are idiots. That their bias is entertainment driven, or sensationalistic driven. We're about the same age. The MSM will become less and less relevant as time goes by, mark my words.

Hmmm . . . I wonder if it would pay to record "Road to the WH" on CSPAN every week, and skip all '08 reporting mostly. I swear, all the chatter on '08 is less than useless in helping me decide.

I really, really enjoyed that debate. So enlightening and better than 7 days straight of CNN.

[beachmom]

13. An article from The New Republic

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070409&s=plumer041107

It's actually very good, and discusses the issues.