Sunday Watch 10-12-08: In Which False Equivalency Struts Its Fraudulent Stuff

Originally published on CJR.org, the Web site of the Columbia Journalism Review

Tom Brokaw is rapidly making up for lost air time by building premises on sand. Conventional wisdom piles atop conventional wisdom, none of it substantial, none of it justifiable, all of it delivered with sonorous assurance from the font of incontrovertible lore. On Meet the Press, Brokaw played a clip from the last McCain-Obama debate:

MR. BROKAW: Health care, energy, and entitlement reform--Social Security and Medicare--in what order would you put them in terms of priorities?

SEN. McCAIN: I, I think you can work on all three at once, Tom.

SEN. OBAMA: We're going to have to prioritize, just like a family has to prioritize. Now, I've listed the things that I think have to be at the top of the list. Energy we have to deal with today. Health care is priority number two, because that broken health care system is bad not only for families, but it's making our businesses less competitive. And number three, we've got to deal with education.

Brokaw proceeded to take refuge with David Broder, who wrote in The Washington Post on Oct. 8: "John McCain and Barack Obama have been asked twice--once in the Mississippi debate and again on Tuesday night--what their priorities would be. McCain flat-out refused to choose, arguing that the United States can do it all. Obama mentioned energy, health care and education but did not acknowledge that he might have to choose among them....It was a stunning rejection of reality."

Who stunningly rejected what? Did I miss the part of the transcript where Obama stated his priorities? True, Obama did leave out entitlement reform, possibly because the issue of Medicare is too contentious (not that McCain has had anything constructive to say about it) and almost certainly because Obama understands that Social Security is not in crisis. But is it not self-evident that Obama did state priorities?

Broder chastised Obama for failing to "acknowledge that he might have to choose." The Random House Unabridged Dictionary offers this meaning for "priority": "the right to precede others in order, rank, privilege, etc.; precedence." The right to precede, I take it, means that if you have to choose between A and B, priority for A means that you choose A rather than B. McCain didn't acknowledge any priorities at all. Anyway, all presidents have to choose among goals, if not rhetorically, then in the effort they invest in Goal A as opposed to Goal B. This is political kindergarten. To David Broder and Tom Brokaw, there was an equivalent "rejection of reality" that was "stunning."

Actually, Broder's "stunning" observation was not only fatuous, it was ideologically loaded toward the empirically disproved right. In fact, in the column cited by Brokaw, Broder went on to say that "If either of [the candidates] has a clue what to do to help stabilize this tottering economy, he is keeping it to himself." Hmm. Obama's website offers this item:

Provide $50 billion to Jumpstart the Economy and Prevent 1 Million Americans from Losing Their Jobs: This relief would include a $25 billion State Growth Fund to prevent state and local cuts in health, education, housing, and heating assistance or counterproductive increases in property taxes, tolls or fees. The Obama-Biden relief plan will also include $25 billion in a Jobs and Growth Fund to prevent cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance and fund school repair - all to save more than 1 million jobs in danger of being cut.

Obama, by now, may well have decided that his $50 billion proposal is chump change. Had Brokaw included a liberal round-tabler, he or she might well have said so. But you can't exactly say that Obama's proposal is nothing. The Broder-Brokaw tripe is premised on an utterly unexamined piece of prejudice: that deficits are automatically dangerous―so much so as to be beyond the bounds of discussion. The invisible guest at the funeral of absolute laissez-faire is the liberal idea that deficits make immense sense at a moment of downturn. Deficits, when they put money in people's pockets, lubricate the economy. Roosevelt discovered this; Kennedy rediscovered it; so did Clinton. That's news to David Broder and Tom Brokaw. In fact, at NBC, it doesn't even rise to the level of news. It didn't happen.

False equivalency is to the Sunday morning chat shows what piety is to the pulpits. There was more.

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the Washington Post's Dan Balz channeled the McCain campaign's view that "there is a huge double standard going on, that Senator Obama can get away with attacking in the most negative and often personal ways and gets at most a slap on the wrist if nothing more [sic]. And that anything that happens around the McCain campaign, whether it's generated by Senator McCain or not, the press and everybody else comes down on their head. They are looking for some way to figure out how they can fight back without being attacked for fighting." Let no one say that the earnest guardians at the Washington Post lack sympathy for the underdog.

Perhaps Balz missed this Michael Cooper piece in The New York Times of July 30, two and a half months ago:

In recent days Senator John McCain has charged that Senator Barack Obama "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign," tarred him as "Dr. No" on energy policy and run advertisements calling him responsible for high gas prices.

The old happy warrior side of Mr. McCain has been eclipsed a bit lately by a much more aggressive, and more negative, Mr. McCain who hammers Mr. Obama repeatedly on policy differences, experience and trustworthiness.

By doing so, Mr. McCain is clearly trying to sow doubts about his younger opponent, and bring him down a peg or two. But some Republicans worry that by going negative so early, and initiating so many of the attacks himself rather than leaving them to others, Mr. McCain risks coming across as angry or partisan in a way that could turn off some independents who have been attracted by his calls for respectful campaigning.

George Will, the conservative whom the angel of honesty does not desert, proceeded to note while McCain this week was trying to salvage his reputation for honor by declaring to one of his more zealous followers ("he's an Arab") that Obama is "a family man" (as if those tricky Arabs are never that), his ads call Obama a "liar." "The dissonance," Will said, "is paralyzing." Not exactly paralyzing, since McCain is fully ambulatory, but credit to Will for pointing a tentative finger at his side's moral bankruptcy.

Paul Krugman stepped in to remind us that Republican savagery is not new, that the Republican base does not regard government by Democrats as "legitimate," that they went after Clinton with charges of murder and drug smuggling (among others).

To which Cokie Roberts contributed this stupendous observation:

On both sides that's true. You also have a huge number of Democrats who think that the Republicans are illegitimate and that was particularly true after the 2000 election. You really do have at the core of each party people who are not ready to accept the verdict of the election.

Democrats accepted the Bush election of 2004. In 2000, a Senate they controlled voted to accept the Electoral College returns as filtered through the fine ministrations of the Rehnquist court. In my view, they ought not to have done so. But they did. That's not good enough for Ms. Roberts. She must have her moral equivalency. There's a motto for our Sunday morning wisdom mongers: Moral Equivalency or Death.

As for Meet the Press, Brokaw did ask McCain surrogate Rob Portman about McCain's "negative" campaign (as if negativity were intrinsically damnable, but that's another story). Portman replied:

Senator Obama has run more negative ads in this campaign than any presidential campaign in history. Easily. And far more negative ads than Senator McCain has run, and including ads that directly take on Senator McCain on things like stem cell research in a, in a dishonest way, Social Security, immigration, that are, you know, by independent fact checkers have been found to be absolutely false.

Stem cells, Social Security, immigration―to criticize McCain on these, Portman thinks, amounts to personal attack. Contra Portman, Gov. Jon Corzine took issue with McCain's deployment of "guilt by association" in his nonstop barrage against Barack Obama as putative buddy of Bill Ayers. Brokaw's response? To ask Corzine about "John Lewis and guilt by association [in a speech] linking [McCain] with George Wallace?" But John Lewis was not accusing McCain of "palling around" with George Wallace. He was accusing McCain of acting like George Wallace―summoning the worst, most vicious, most racist angels of the American nature.

Once again, Brokaw's round table was a liberal-free zone. He concluded with the idiotic prediction game, John McLaughlin's gift to the game-show-as-phony-sophistication genre: "Do you expect an October surprise?" Readers, if you're desperate to know who came out where, you'll have to read the Meet the Press transcript. I won't spoil the surprise.

Comments

[littlepuffycloud]

What happened to Brokaw? Was he always so partial to the conservatives or did I just not notice? I find his speaking voice and style very off putting and wish he'd just go write yet another book about the past.

[Frannyvida]

Excellent article! I've been jotting things such as this in a journal to keep my family from wanting to strangle me, (as I scream at the tv), but I do it so as not to strangle myslef.

Last notes included: On Monday's Hardball, Brokaw continues to coddle McCain like a proud papa, explaining his thoughts and actions at the debate. "He was filled with energy and restlessness as he walked the stage, made a note. I didn't detect any hostility between he and Obama. " (was he present at the same debate I was watching?) When asked about whom he would have as his Treasury Secretary, Chris asks Brokaw about McCain's "odd" answer. "Oh I think the question was just unexpected. He got into a rift and didn't know how to get out of it." Then they both somewhat agree on it was just the "Irish" in him.
I could go on but I'll skip to the part about McCain's meager attempt at correcting a townhall participant re: Obama, and in that deep tonal croon pulls Mathews into what a fine guy McCain is. I'll end by pulling out one last hair over Lou Dobbs indignation of Representative Lewis's remarks on sowing the seeds of hate. What a preposterous assertion says Dobbs, as he indignantly screams on and on. I keep channel surfing to hear the next unsaid thing that will be said . It's all just getting to be too much.

[thebatgirl]

I too miss Russert.
I think Brokow should go back into retirement.
I strongly vote for Chris Matthews, he does a good job nailing his subjects to the wall, If they are not answering the questions. Something Russert was very good at.
Brokow is in love with his voice.

[swift goat pet for truth]

Rachel should get MTP. I know she is new and all, but the way she conducts herself is way beyone everyone else.

[mapster]

Why do so few in the media talk about the close personal relationship between Brokaw, Dowd, Bob Schieffer and other medialites and John McCain? Remember, he once enjoyed calling the press his base. Instead, whether it is during the debate or on the idiotic Sunday morning shows, these shameful talking heads are allowed to pretend objectivity, never leveling with the audience. They attend the parties, rub elbows at the dinners, and congratulate themselves (though of course they'd never admit it) for being part of the establishment instead of its watchdog. Why does anyone take these people seriously--or watch their shows?

Brokaw et al aren't journalists. They are extraordinarily wealthy celebrity insiders who enjoy being part of the ruling class far removed from the rest of us; the dirty, teeming masses known as ordinary Americans. Where are the likes of IF Stone? While I know there are a few great journalist still out there, these noble reporters who take their role as the Fourth Estate seriously, they are few and far between, and work for outlets with shrinking budgets.

As concerned citizens it is our duty to cut through the blather and bias, seek out the facts, educate ourselves on the issues, and share our knowledge. Our future depends on it.

[egal]

See, paying any attention whatsoever would force these commentators to acknowledge that Obama has rational, specific, and realistic plans detailed for just about everything.

Since the media mouthpieces are GOP flunkies, they can't look at any plan Obama elucidates because that makes it easier for them, in plausible deniability, to say that Obama doesn't HAVE a clear and precise plan.

Sure, anybody who actually pays attention will realize they're simply morons who refuse to open their eyes to the real world, but they're catering to those they can forcefeed biased lies anyway.

[larose501]

Browder, Brokaw, Gibson, Stankenopolis, the list goes on and on. These guys can't shine the shoes of
Ed Murrow, Huntley and Brinkley, Fahey Flynn, Peter Jennings, or Tim Russert. I quit Meet the Press too just don't have the stomach for it. Hopefully in this new age that we are entering some true journalist will emerge into tv media who can be fair and present the news balanced and unbiased. Right now we have to settle for the sensational and the mundane. Have you noticed how some of them think if they talk LOUD what they are saying will become true? Sad Just sad.

[Wilson201]

Brokaw has been studying Palin-tology. Truly bad. I miss Russert.

[osusana]

The late and sorely missed Tim Russert must be turning in his grave! He was the most balanced, tough and fair interviewer I've ever seen. He was also supremely well-informed. He did his homework and would never have let such misstatements of what Obama said go by unchallenged. He would have known that the debate would be a prime subject and would have been fully prepared to roll tape on the precise statement under discussion.

Do I lie???

[eden4barack08]

No you don't lie. And the BEST thing about Russert, is you never knew which side he was on. That was journalism!

[jerseymaiden]

Where on earth does Portman get off claiming that OBAMA has been running more negative ads than McCain??? That is just insane! It's total "black-is-white," 1984-style doublespeak. How stupid are these so-called pundits?? Why is Keith Olbermann the only one on TV who ever stands up and yells "foul" on this psycho republican s&!!T !!!

And Cokie Roberts, please! "You also have a huge number of Democrats who think that the Republicans are illegitimate" -- Yes, because THEY ARE! Is she trying to say that because we objected to the 2000 election being given to Bush by the politicized Supreme Court, this makes us "as bad" as the republicans, who have been actively trying to destroy democrats and liberals, and intimidate and silence us, ever since CLINTON was elected?!? I always liked her, but not now -- She's obviously gone right-wing in her old age. Pity. She was once a great reporter.

[NHGranite]

Why can't anyone figure out that moving your mouth doesn't mean you are talking truth. To hell with Brokaw. They are going to lie an no one is going to ask them WTF.

[OkayLady]

I have watched MTP since i was 15. I cannot stand it anymore. Brokaw seems to think i want his opinion on the opinion of the opinion makers who filter the common wisdom to give us the Ultimate Prognostication. Praise the pundits and pass the prop water!

I want an informed advocate asking questions who will reveal topics that need to become a part of tthe public debate. Russert ticked me off sometimes, but I still ended the show informed.

Russert must be wishing he could bean Brokaw upside the head with a buffulo bills football every sunday.

Brokaw is HORRIBLE. please replace him with ,,,,,anyone!

[mdowning]

What about this is exceptional? This is the typical drool that they always come up with as "logic" and "truth." What made this noteworthy, out of everything the campaign and media have already completely misconstrued? It's constant, and it has been for months.

McSame's a slimeball ("we're fighting the good fight"???!!!!!!!), Republicans are pathetic excuses for whatever it is they claim to be or stand for, and this is the way it has been and will be. Bottom of the barrel scumbags, all of them.

[proreality]

If 5=2 and 4=3 than 9=5 which actually =2, and what does all that matter, it doesn't, it's a complicated way of saying 1+1 equals 2 in a way that makes every body else feel stupid and justifies one's own importance. There is absolutely no comparison whatsoever between the McCain smear slime lie obfuscate perpetuate joke of a political campaign and what Obama has answered with. What is the major malfunction in the main stream media? These people are an absolute joke!

[faithfully]

I just saw Chris Matthews interview Brokaw. While he sounds folksy and smart-he isn't; He thinks Palin is a product of the Women's Movement (I would argue that she isn't).

[mad tn dem]

I accidentally caught a portion of MTP on Sunday...it is an insult to Tim Russert to allow his show, the show we all respected, to be continually debased and made a mockery of. Why the "deciders" don't do away with brokow forthwith, pronto, asap, like yesterday already, is a total mystery. They are going to let this go so long that the loyal audience will move on, and no matter WHO hosts it, it will be too late. memo to brokow - do Tim's fans a favor, go the hell home..

[alicetilden]

Why doesn't NBC send Brokaw back to retirement? It certainly seems like he is trying to influence this election. Tim would never have done that. He respected the process too much. On Hardball, Brokaw just referred to himself has part of the Pundit or talking class. He never was one of those people and it really shows. He was only a talking head. I don't think I like the real Tom Brokaw.