The Impotent Media

In my GOP Turnoff Week post, I mentioned that there have been recent statements by the media disavowing any perceived influence that they might have over the course of current events – particularly the course of events under Republican administrations. One short and not-so-sweet statement was from Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie, Jr. in the context of the Post’s confession that they stuffed news articles that questioned the Bush administration’s claims about WMDs:

People who were opposed to the war from the beginning and have been critical of the media’s coverage in the period before the war have this belief that somehow the media should have crusaded against the war. They have the mistaken impression that somehow if the media’s coverage had been different, there wouldn’t have been a war.

This statement could actually be taken to mean two different – although not necessarily conflicting – things. One interpretation, and I think this is what Downie meant, is that the media is much more impotent than opponents of the war believe. Another interpretation is that Bush was so “resolute” in his desire to go to war that he would have gone to war even if the media’s coverage had been more critical than it was. I don’t think that’s what Downie really meant.

A much more elaborate, if less coherent, exposition of this impotent media theory was put forth by Maureen Dowd while on the WBUR radion program On Point plugging her new book, “Bushworld: Enter at Your Own Risk.” What follows is my transcript of a discussion involving Maureen Dowd, On Point host Tom Ashbrook, and David (a caller from Cambridge, MA):

David from Cambridge: One question I’d like to ask her is whether she feels a little chagrined at having helped elect this guy that we’ve got now. I mean, the things that she ridiculed and helped take Clinton and Gore down with, you know, sex in the White House, you know, a stiff manner, it does seem a little bit petty and ridiculous now in the face of the danger Bush has brought on us.

Tom Ashbrook: Maureen Dowd, you’re on the dock. What do you say?

Maureen Dowd: Well, I don’t know how much – I’m happy that you think journalists have so much influence, but I think, you know, the election of Ronald Reagan proves they don’t. I mean, the journalists were very down on Ronald Reagan who covered him and he managed to win quite handily every time he ran. But I know what you mean. I mean, I have some of my own friends make this point to me, but …

Tom Ashbrook: “Maureen, how could you?!”

Maureen Dowd: … Well, for instance, you know, I had this argument with a good friend of mine about my Gore coverage, and, I guess, my point would be, you know, when I, if I write a column about Al Gore, let’s say, in a debate, and he goes up to Bush and goes right up to him and threatens him and kind of is sighing in an exasperated way, I don’t think those are trivial things. I think elections turn on those things, and, you know, I’m not a partisan columnist, so I’m not going to protect Al Gore if he’s doing stupid stuff, you know, but I want to analyze either side.

Tom Ashbrook: So you’re saying, “Maureen Dowd didn’t make the world; she only observes it.” David, let me put that back to you. She does observe it, but she observes it with a heck of a lot of verve, to say the least. How do you …

David from Cambridge: This is where I think writers like Maureen Dowd have a lot of influence. When the level of discourse is taken down, and I’m not talking about her intelligence and her wit and all that …

Tom Ashbrook: Or even her, but are you saying her approach somehow? Takes it down? What do you mean by that?

David from Cambridge: Yes. Her kind of humor, although very funny and very impressive, it helps people to stop thinking about what’s actually involved.

Tom Ashbrook: You think that’s true? Even now, though, David, when I’m perceiving maybe you’re not a Bush guy …

David from Cambridge: No, I’m not a Bush guy.

Tom Ashbrook: I have to say, I find she illuminates Bush World for me, as she illuminated Clinton World often.

David from Cambridge: What she does is to discourage the earnest and the thoughtful and the sincere and allow the cynical and the, you know, the people with the inside angle, like the Bushes, to do their game. I mean, the way she works is to, the effect she really has, is to demoralize the people that actually agree with her politically.

Tom Ashbrook: Hmm. This gets bigger and broader. Maureen Dowd?

Maureen Dowd: I know. Cynical is actually my most unfavorite word, and attitude is my second.

Tom Ashbrook: To describe anyone? To describe yourself?

Maureen Dowd: Well, maybe some people would like to, I hate that word. I never want to be cynical. I want to be skeptical. I mean, I guess, I know what you’re saying, and I have friends who have made this case to me, but, in order for me to make the argument that Al Gore would be better than Bush, I’d have to have a partisan column, and Bill Safire and Anna Quindlen have partisan columns, but I don’t. I just have a different kind of column. I know what you mean, but I don’t think what I write about is, even if it seems trivial, I think it’s important sometimes in politics, because elections can turn on very small things, like, you know, how you display your personality in a debate.

Tom Ashbrook: And how that personality is perceived and described …

Maureen Dowd: Especially before 9/11. I mean, you know, when you look back at the Bush/Gore race, I mean, Bush had that quiz where he couldn’t name any foreign leaders. Think of how devastating that would be after 9/11.

Tom Ashbrook: Sure. We’ll go on. But what about the core of this, I mean, that you are the master of that needling, mocking send-up? It can be extraordinarily, I find, illuminating, but do you ever worry – David saying – it helps set a tone that works against the earnest, the sincere?

Maureen Dowd: I guess from my point of view, I mean, I try to make this argument to my friends and never – it’s actually only one friend I have who says this, and I never can persuade him, but, you know, I just think that if I were to ignore, you know, that stuff about Al Gore that I feel is causing him to lose his race …

Tom Ashbrook: “So feminized … he’s practically lactating.”

Maureen Dowd: Yeah. I mean, if I don’t say it, voters are still going to see it. They’re still going to see that he’s blowing a debate by sighing or that Clinton and Gore are using a lot of psychobabble in their convention. I mean, I could suppress it, but people see it and it’s how they form their opinion of politicians, so I feel like I can point it out, too.

Tom Ashbrook: But when you say it, wow, does it ring. David, thanks for your call.

Far be it from me to protect Maureen Dowd when she says stupid stuff.