Post-Deabnte Spin Has Begun

For some bizarre reason, the AP has already put out a report on the debate written in the past tense:
After a deluge of campaign speeches and hostile television ads, President Bush and challenger John Kerry got their chance to face each other directly Thursday night before an audience of tens of millions of voters in a high-stakes debate about terrorism, the Iraq war and the bloody aftermath.

The 90-minute encounter was particularly crucial for Kerry, trailing slightly in the polls and struggling for momentum less than five weeks before the election. The Democratic candidate faced the challenge of presenting himself as a credible commander in chief after a torrent of Republican criticism that he was prone to changing his positions.

Bush was expected to confront questions about leading the nation into war on the still-unproven premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He also has faced accusations that he lacked a strategy to deal with the violence and chaos that have left more than 1,000 Americans dead and that the Iraq war has diverted U.S. attention from al-Qaida and other terrorists.

With a record of four years in office to defend, Bush had a debate strategy of being optimistic about Iraq but acknowledging that times were tough. His stance is that Americans know he is a decisive leader even if they don't always agree with his decisions and that Kerry has taken conflicting positions on Iraq and can't be trusted to lead the nation. (...)

Ahead in the polls, Bush could afford to settle for a debate draw while Kerry needed something to break the status quo. Some Democrats saw the debates as the last chance for a Kerry breakout.

Thursday night's meeting at the University of Miami was the first of three Bush-Kerry debates over a two-week period. Neither side was underestimating its importance with a TV audience of 30 million to 40 million expected. Almost a third of people surveyed say the debates will be a deciding factor in how they vote.

The first debate drew the nation's attention to hurricane-battered Florida and its political importance. Florida swung the presidency to Bush in the disputed 2000 election and could determine whether he wins re-election.

The debates were staged under a rigid set of rules negotiated by the candidates' representatives to limit spontaneity and opportunities for back-and-forth exchanges.

What the heck? Why is this written as though it already happened?

Anyway, if this is the start of the post-debate spin, it does at least give us an edge in our rapid response. Most importantly, it shows us what the media might report as Bush's weakness: no plan to deal with escalating Iraq violence and starting the war based on a faulty premise. It is on these point that we should we should feed the media narrative, but tweak it ever so slightly by adding and repeating the word "betrayal." I hear from a certain pollster that this word is highly damaging to candidates in focus groups. For example:

  • Bush betrayed the American people by leading us into war under the false premise of weapons of mass destruction.

  • Bush betrayed American soldiers by not properly planning for the length of the war and the scope of its violence.

  • Bush was told before the war began by his own generals and advisors that it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq, but he betrayed American soldiers by not listening to that advice.

  • Bush is betraying his trust with the American people by pretending that all is well in Iraq and continuing to ignore that the situation is growing worse by the day.

  • Bush is betraying the American taxpayer by not revealing the true monetary costs of the war.

  • Bush betrayed his country by not fully serving his time in the National Guard.
This is a foreign policy debate. Keep your emails focused squarely on these subjects.



Display:


time zones (none / 0)

it was written in past tense because some papers on the other side of the world go to press before the debate begins, but still want to have some coverage.
by fedupdem on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 04:16:59 PM EST

Nice buzzword (none / 0)

betrays is better than lies because you don't have to prove it... it is a judgement call vs. a technical proof.
by kfractal on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 04:42:50 PM EST

This has happened before (none / 0)

If I'm not mistaken, the AP issued an article about Dick Cheney arriving at the White House in the morning, quoted a time, and the article was published online about 6 hours BEFORE he supposedly arrived.
by Jeff Seemann For Congress on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 04:52:01 PM EST

See last night's Daily Show (none / 0)

They spoofed this exactly the same way on the Daily Show last night!  

http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart

by FTR editor on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 04:55:13 PM EST

Re: See last night's Daily Show (none / 0)

That's what I was thinking of as I read this.  It's unbelievable.
by Erin in Flagstaff on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 04:59:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See last night's Daily Show (none / 0)

I know an Erin in Flagstaff.  Do your parents by any chance run a B&B in Tucson?  If so, you know me -- Alex H. in Riverside.
Regards,
Alex
Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for President! Beat McCain!
by Alex on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 05:12:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See last night's Daily Show (none / 0)

No, though there are more Erins in Flag, I'm a different Erin than the one you know.
by Erin in Flagstaff on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 06:46:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah, well.... (none / 0)

That would have been a neat coincidence.
Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for President! Beat McCain!
by Alex on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 08:30:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this looks more like a plug-n-chug- frame... (none / 0)

Only a stupid or lazy editor would consider trying to pass this off as "debate coverage" (which is not to say scores of editors across America won't run this as is...)

 I'm fairly certain this was written and released on the wire ahead of time, with the intent that subscribers use the general framework of background factoids (e.g. Bush Ahead in Polls, win important to Kerry, Americans scared of terrorists, Florida recently buffeted by hurricanes...) and plug in supporting material around it as the debate progresses.

This way, newspapers (like mine) where the deadline is fairly early, have 3/4s of their article already written and much of the gruntwork out of the way. From there, we can slap in local-quotes from people watching the debate in the bars, talk to local politicos, record the more significant moments/gaffes/etc of the debate, and draw our own conclusions as to who won (whoever Cable-News tells us... we are helpless to resist.)

For those who aren't familiar with the practices of ink-stained wretches, this isn't uncommon. Granted, life can be surprising, but ususally you don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to anticipate the general direction an event is going to take, or what information might be necessary and available ahead of time, and shape together a rather general frame of facts and observations that can safely be written ahead.

If we get this crap out of the way ahead of time, hopefully, it leaves us time to concentrate on more important things. Like fact-checking debate claims. Or, you know...trying to attach a disproportionate degree of poignancy to meaningless eye-rolling or surreptitious watch-glances.

Are there those who argue this is bad journalism, leading reporters subsequently to cast stories within the frame of their pre-set expectations and conclusions? Yes, but it's principally beret-wearing, hand-wringing J school graduates,and most reporters habitually ignore them.
 

by lowearthorbital on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 06:36:23 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.