Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

What Liberal Media? The Buried Lead

The most recent NYT poll has Bush 3 points ahead of Kerry in a head to head matchup and an eye-popping 8 points ahead in a three way race with Nader in the mix. As virtually everyone in the blogosphere has noted at some point or another, its hard to put much stock in polls this early. What's striking though is the way the Times spun the story. The poll results are not only buried in the eighth and ninth paragraphs of the story, immediately preceded by three paragraphs about why the poll is bad news for Bush. Update: Mickey Kaus puts it into historical context:

Isn't the news in the latest CBS/New York Times poll that it shows Bush inching ahead--that the current (pre-Spanish election) campaign dynamic, including Bush's advertising launch, has been working at least slightly in the President's favor? A month ago CBS had Kerry over Bush by five percent, but in the new poll Bush leads Kerry 46 to 43 even without Nader. The NYT's Nagourney and Elder comically don't get around to imparting this information until paragraph #8, choosing instead to emphasize the anti-incumbent suggestion that "Bush and Kerry enter the general election at a time of growing concern among Americans that the nation is veering in the wrong direction." That puts the lede two paragraphs lower down than readers found it in the days before the 2002 midterms, when Nagourney buried the big news (that the Republicans were surging) in paragraph 6. Who's going in the wrong direction?

What Liberal Media? The VNR Non-story

Driving home tonight, I heard a story on NPR about the Bush administration's use of video news releases:

The government's use of video news releases to promote changes in Medicare's drug plan has Democratic opponents calling it a political ploy. The releases, which include actors posing as journalists, are sent to media outlets in the hope that the clips will be used in their broadcasts.

The story's "balance" came mostly from quoting an administration spokesman to the effect that everybody did it. Indeed, I thought I remembered that the Clinton administration did the same thing all the time. I was right:

Simply put, a VNR is a film clip, maybe a minute or two in length, usually produced by a public relations firm and made available to television stations and networks by satellite feed. Dozens of PR firms now produce VNRs. ... Congress and the White House have gotten into the act. Congress creates VNRs in its own fully equipped, tax-payer-funded television station in the belly of the Rayburn Building in Washington. Meanwhile, the Clinton administration hires out, paying companies like Medialink of New York--at taxpayer expense-to transmit VNRs by satellite to stations around the country.

Supposedly, the Clinton VNRs had a statement that they were produced by the government, but so what? Stations that use the Bush VNR intact know where it came from. Stations that used the Clinton VNRs intact likely didn't run that disclaimer (not identifying the source of the VNR long has been a common, albeit ethically suspect, practice). So that strikes me as a wash. In sum, this is another one of those stories that was a non-story when it involves Democrats, but becomes a big scandal when Republicans do it.

What Liberal Media? A Suspect Retraction

According to Drudge, Boston Globe reporter Patrick Healy, whose story started the whole Kerry and "foreign leaders" meme, is now claiming the Kerry actually said "more leaders." Glenn Reynolds is all over the story, explaining why he doesn't believe Healy. (See also Southern Appeal.) Somebody's lying here - and my guess is that its two certain somebodies from Boston. After all, as Reynolds details, Kerry's own subsequent statements only make sense is he was talking about foreign leaders.

Speaking of our French Allies

In response to my post on the trans-atlantic rift, an alert reader sent me the link to this story:

The navies of China and France begin joint exercises today off the north Chinese coast in what Beijing says will be the "most comprehensive" military drills with a foreign power by a fleet under the command of the People's Liberation Army.

Although they are being conducted some distance from Taiwan, the exercises will take place just days before sensitive presidential elections on the island. China claims sovereignty over Taiwan.

< SARCASM >Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. It'll promote democracy and self-determination.< /SARCASM > (Update: Glenn Reynolds has more coverage. See also the Reuters story here.)

The Trans-Atlantic Rift

From Expatica-France comes this analysis of why the US-German rift over Iraq is healing faster than that between the US and France:

"The German side tried for political and economic reasons to improve ties with the United States, which was certainly a more deliberate choice than any French desire to do so," said Frank Umbach, of the German Council on Foreign Relations.

"It's also because America treats them differently. In Washington, they're still more irritated about France than about Germany."

Rightly or wrongly, many Americans perceived German opposition to the war as reflecting an understandable (and even desirable) post-World War II German pacifism and equally understandable (if not desirable) opportunistic posturing by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder during a tough election fight. In contrast, French opposition seemed to be rooted in institutionalized anti-Americanism. (Last December, liberal warhawk Roger Simon cuttingly opined: "the storied [French] anti-Americanism now seemed almost the pathetic gesture of a failed state.") Hence, we expected the rift with Gremany to be temporary, being based on reflecting short-term disagreements, while the rift with France may well be indefinite, being based on long-standing antipathy and, indeed, even long-term strategic competition. (As even liberal blogger Kevin Drum once observed, "France does indeed insist on playing the role of spoiler far, far too often.") [Ed.: Today's OTB traffic entry].

Inside the Shadow Democratic Party

Great article at Business Week on the new shadow Democrat party that's emerging in 527s:

Known as 527s after a provision of the federal code that grants them tax-exempt status, the committees have been spectacularly successful since they got under way last year, having already raised almost $100 million in soft money. More important than the dollars, though, is the highly sophisticated political machine under construction - a web of interlocking, like-minded organizations that could at once save and partly supplant the Democratic Party. And if the 527s don't give presumptive nominee Senator John Kerry an edge against George W. Bush, they will at least help level the playing field.

This strategy is largely the brainchild of Steve Rosenthal, former political director of the AFL-CIO. His group, America Coming Together (ACT), hopes to raise $95 million to build an elab- orate operation that will spur Democratic voters to the polls in 17 battleground states. ACT is working closely with the Media Fund, set up by former Clinton aide Harold Ickes, which hopes to raise an additional $50 million to target the same voters with issue ads.

These two big committees are coordinating with smaller 527s, as well as with more than two dozen left-leaning organizations such as the Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood (table). The two groups even have jointly hired their own pollsters, opposition research, and public-relations team. "We're a lot like a campaign, but without a candidate," says Ickes. In essence, Rosenthal, Ickes & Co. are building something that could -- and in fact legally must -- be an alternative Democratic Party.

Sheesh. Why not just repeal McCain-Feingold and let the traditional political parties do it? The parties would be more accountable and, probably, more transparent. Anyway the article also details how the 527s will be spending their money.

Why I Predict an October Surprise

I don't claim any special expertise in warblogging, but even I can read the tea leaves when they're this obvious. The Madrid bombing seemingly reflects both a reduction in al Qaeda's tactical abilities and an increase in its strategic sophistication. On the tactical front, the WSJ ($) reports:

[Matthew Levitt, a] former FBI terrorism analyst, says evidence suggests the Madrid bombings were carried out by operatives on the fringes, who operated without much central control. It is a pattern, he says, that fits many of the post-9/11 bombings that have been credited to al Qaeda. "It suggests that affiliated groups are taking center stage because we've done so much damage to the inner core," Mr. Levitt said. "It presents a very different kind of threat."... The attack on commuter trains ... represented a shift from high-value symbolic targets, such as New York's World Trade Center, to more mundane targets that are virtually impossible to defend but yield high casualties.

Yet, look at the strategic value of the attack. It changed the complexion of the Spanish election, bringing into office a party far less likely to support the US.

Al Qaeda's involvement in the Madrid attacks also would confirm fears among Western intelligence officials that the group's political sophistication has been growing. Speaking before the Madrid bombings, a senior German counterintelligence official said the first taste of this came last Nov. 20, when the British consulate and an office of a British bank were bombed in Istanbul. "The attack was a masterpiece of political timing," the official said, noting that it coincided with massive demonstrations in London, where President Bush was meeting British Prime Minister Tony Blair during a high profile three-day state visit. "Millions of people turned on their TV for news about Istanbul and were frozen to their screens as the networks toggled between the protests in London and the carnage in Turkey," said the official....

If this analysis is correct, and it strikes me as highly plausible, October could be a very dangerous month here in the States. (Update: Pejman Yousefzadeh has a very extensive roundup of blogosphere reactions, with commentary).

Jobs and the recovery

Interesting pair of articles in the Wall Street Journal ($) today. On page 1, Improving Economic Signals May No Longer Deliver Votes explains that doubts about job security continue to pull down President Bush's poll numbers even as most economic indicators remain strong or even improve:

The equation used to be simple: If the economy was growing strongly, the incumbent had a huge edge. By that measure, Mr. Bush should be cruising to easy victory. Gross domestic product grew at an eye-popping 6% annual pace in the second half of 2003, and should expand at a brisk 4.7% rate through 2004, according to the consensus forecast of Blue Chip Economic Indicators. ... But even Mr. Bush and his aides acknowledge something different is going on this year. New technology, higher productivity and broader globalization have made American businesses more efficient, profitable and dynamic, and the past year's rapid growth dramatically lifted the stock market.

Yet that dynamism has done little to generate new jobs overall and contributed to a heightened state of anxiety for millions of Americans who feel less confident about the size and certainty of their piece of the pie. ... At the same time, many families have seen the fraying of conventional safety nets, such as health insurance, pensions and government services, that are especially important in just such times of instability. The share of Americans lacking health insurance of any kind rose to 15.2% in 2002 from 14.6% the year before. And while overall inflation is down, the bills for some major household expenses - including gasoline and prescription drugs - are leaping upward. Public college tuition rose 13% during the current school year.

Nagging insecurity amid prosperity is the emerging economic theme of the 2004 campaign. In that debate, the question of whether free trade helps average Americans by opening up the economy or causes those anxieties has become the boldest rhetorical dividing line between the two candidates.

Turning to page 2, however, we discover that the source of much of the current dissatisfaction with President Bush - outsourcing - appears to be less of a problem than many believe. Indeed, we are told that More Work Is Outsourced to U.S. Than Away From It, Data Show:

Despite the political outcry over the outsourcing of white-collar jobs to such places as India and Ghana, the latest U.S. government data suggest that foreigners outsource far more office work to the U.S. than American companies send abroad. The value of U.S. exports of legal work, computer programming, telecommunications, banking, engineering, management consulting and other private services jumped to $131.01 billion in 2003, up $8.42 billion from the previous year, the Commerce Department reported Friday. Imports of such private services -- a category that encompasses U.S. outsourcing of call centers and data entry to developing nations, among other things -- hit $77.38 billion for the year, up $7.94 billion from 2002. Measuring imports against exports, the U.S. posted a $53.64 billion surplus last year in trade in private services with the rest of the world.

At least in services, free trade benefits the US. Protectionist impulses that ignite a trade war in srevices are therefore highly likely to backfire. In any event, for more coverage of the allegedly jobless recovery check out Tyler Cowen's analysis of why the recovery has been jobless - and what not to do about it and Alex Tabarrok's devestating critique of Paul Krugman's latest column, about which Alex concludes: "Has political progaganda taken the place of professional analysis? Indeed."