Journalistic ethics
A message comes to multiple reporters from the Kerry campaign slamming Dean but then the campaign doesn't want the reporter to mention the source.
This is apparently often done. But this would be a veiled attack by one campaign on another. Nevertheless, many of the reporters reported the story without mentioning the source. Nagourney from the New York Times refused to report the story without the source and was attacked by the Kerry campaign.
The story's explained on the Daily Kos...
It interests me that Dean has become the 'anger candidate.' This is the sort of tactic that the other campaigns are using and it isn't working. Nothing they are doing is working. Dean says we are not safer now they've caught Hussein. No duh. Kerry attacks him for lacking "diplomatic temperment." What is that? The inability to say something you believe is true that might have sufficient content to draw criticism from ideological enemies?
That is precisely what Dean does and it fascinates me and heartens me that it works to increase his popularity. The received wisdom on the caution one must display as a candidate is clearly wrong. I say 'caution' to be nice. In fact, only the democrats have been 'cautious' in this way and apparently there are a base of voters who wearily went along with it but happily turned to a fiery candidate when one came along.
This says nothing about 'who will win.' I don't have the slightest idea who will win the presidency. It's beginning to look as if Dean will win the primary. It says something about politics. Dean isn't that 'radical'--he is only unique in this moribund political climate.
Oh, but I stand by my earlier statement: We're still doomed.
A message comes to multiple reporters from the Kerry campaign slamming Dean but then the campaign doesn't want the reporter to mention the source.
This is apparently often done. But this would be a veiled attack by one campaign on another. Nevertheless, many of the reporters reported the story without mentioning the source. Nagourney from the New York Times refused to report the story without the source and was attacked by the Kerry campaign.
The story's explained on the Daily Kos...
It interests me that Dean has become the 'anger candidate.' This is the sort of tactic that the other campaigns are using and it isn't working. Nothing they are doing is working. Dean says we are not safer now they've caught Hussein. No duh. Kerry attacks him for lacking "diplomatic temperment." What is that? The inability to say something you believe is true that might have sufficient content to draw criticism from ideological enemies?
That is precisely what Dean does and it fascinates me and heartens me that it works to increase his popularity. The received wisdom on the caution one must display as a candidate is clearly wrong. I say 'caution' to be nice. In fact, only the democrats have been 'cautious' in this way and apparently there are a base of voters who wearily went along with it but happily turned to a fiery candidate when one came along.
This says nothing about 'who will win.' I don't have the slightest idea who will win the presidency. It's beginning to look as if Dean will win the primary. It says something about politics. Dean isn't that 'radical'--he is only unique in this moribund political climate.
Oh, but I stand by my earlier statement: We're still doomed.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home