Adam’s got a terrific story at the Phoenix, asking how our local media (including chez nous) could get away with covering so little substance in the campaign, so little that would actually indicate what might happen in the next four years:
Its embarrassing to be this half-assed after covering the governors race for almost two years. My consolation, such as it is, is that Im not the only member of the press whos frustrated by his or her grasp of key public-policy issues or who thinks that, collectively, we may have let Massachusetts down.
One reporter I spoke with recently rattled off a slew of key topics taxes, the MCAS, charter schools (also here–ed), the funding mechanism for local aid and offered this disheartening assessment: The problem is, I feel like I dont understand any more about any of these issues than I did before the whole thing started. No one has made any sense of these things. Thats our job, and I dont think weve done it.
I hear that. But why? Well, those issues (I would have added health care) are really complicated, and don’t necessarily lend themselves to deadline-driven journalistic product. But they do all deal with facts, and strange to say, this is dangerous for journalists too, since they might have to actually take a stand on which candidate is factually correct, thereby potentially losing the appearance of neutrality.
Let’s face it: If the campaign is just a game played for subjective style points, then anyone can be a judge: “Oooh, that was a good line!” “That’ll never work!” etc. No homework or wonkery required. I’m not saying that all journalists are lazy all the time … but I do know what’s easier to put out on a deadline.
And I think we at BMG have been guilty of the same “reactiveness” as the rest. Luckily, we do get sick of the rat-a-tat-tat here, and talk real issues from time to time, in great detail. Our commenters on this site bring an astonishing array of experience, insight and talent. Just today I was looking up info on Question 3, and found the best back-and-forth right here, on these very pages. No better in the Commonwealth, folks, and you’re doing it.
But you know, we’re not professionals here. Adam is right to take the Globe to task. Did you really need to know so much about Killer Coke, Taj Deval, whether Deval is really a prosecutor (note to Globe: he is), or any number of other sideshows? Is that important to you on a daily basis?
So yeah, I’ll be happy when this campaign is over, and we can start talking policy again. Doesn’t that sound strange to say?
I would have added “transporatation funding”. The state has committed to extend the Green Line to Somerville and Medford, and to add more commuter rail service and stations in Dorchester. There are also plans to extend commuter rail to New Bedford and Fall River, improve service to Worcester and Fitchburg, and possibly extend service into New Hampshire.
<
p>
How will this be paid for?
And that’s not even mentioning Turnpike tolls (increase them, or eliminate them?), the Blue Line extension to Charles Street (legally required, but not being actively planned), Green Line to Arborway (ditto), Blue Line to Lynn, …
Adam Reilly pointed out that even he was more interested in the LeGuer articles than he would have been in a piece about charter schools. The media provide what their audience wants. And while I could list lots of things that I would have liked to see, and that I would have liked undecided voters to see, the media outlets probably know what sells better than I do.
<
p>
I doubt it would make much difference in the election results if all the information Reilly wanted to see had been published. Many people would have simply ignored it, and those who wouldn’t have were likely able to find things on the web or somewhere else. And a huge number of voters, such as myself, had our minds made up before the campaign started.
<
p>
So let the MSM do what they do, and hopefully BMG will keep doing what it does and filling in some of the gaps for those who are looking for more.
<
p> – Dan
When I was phone banking I found a lot of people wanted specifics that I didn’t have. My main tack was to talk about priorities. No place to argue about Healey’s specifics doing phone banking–in person most people can’t give those either.
<
p>
I remember watching Chris Gabrieli grilled on a few shows and he seemed to have in depth detailed understanding. I hope in some way he plays a role in the Patrick administration (I know it is too soon to say Patrick administration-but it sounds good).
Well, some are on Patrick’s website, but they don’t exactly give you a library of policy papers when you do phone banking. I think that’s always a problem with one-on-one contact. What did they ask?
<
p>
In any event, if Patrick’s been vague on the stump or in debates, I think it’s because any specific ground you stake out is only going to be an initial negotiating position with the legislature anyway. So talking about priorities is the way to go.
<
p>
And I still contend he’s been more forthright and detailed than any other candidate.
but along the same general lines. This is a good point: “And I still contend he’s been more forthright and detailed than any other candidate.”
<
p> I would say that positions are about priorties and a general direction.
<
p>
One thing that helps is as a lay person you can talk about your personal pet issues. I am sick of town meetings that have basically turned into a war between older folks burdened by property tax and young families who have to lobby for prop 2.5 over-rides. Patrick considers state aid to the cities and towns, home care for the elderly and All day kindergarten is another.
<
p>
Since one-on-one you can personalize a conversation — I will note that support for people with disabilities as a major position plank of Patrick’s is defacto evidence that the man has class.
<
p>
They ask me how he will pay for this and I say that these are Patrick/Murray’s priorities but they are not dictates or even promises–everything has to go through the legislature.
<
p>
Patrick would be better able to sustain vetoes when needed. Romney’s vetoes have been largely symbolic. Someone who can actually work with the legislature has a better chance of countering extravagant spending
<
p>
Sometimes – depending on the tone of the conversation I will note that I now believe Republicans who have touted “fiscal conservatism” have been creating illusions. Note that Dukakis was considered a flagrant spender and left with a record 13.5 billion dollar state budget. After “fiscally conservative” Bill Weld’s first term the budget was 16.5 billion. Now it is about 24 billion.
<
p>
I have on the fly discussions at work or in Dunkin Donuts–I don’t argue with phone bank people that I have cold-called at home.
<
p>
When they say it would have been worse with a Democrat I ask them what they think of Jane Swift? Invariably they say she was a disaster. Then I point out that of all of the Republican governors she was the only one to cut the state budget and Republicans were willing to toss her out for Romney. My point is that their idea of “fiscal conservatism” is an illusion because all the Republican governors they like are flagrant spenders who can’t hold a veto– and when they get one that wasn’t they tossed her under the bus.
<
p>
Anyway that’s how my rhetoric goes. I really think I may be the world’s worst phone=banker — I am really bad. I gave it up. I do better chatting people up at the convenience stores and coffee shops.
<
p>
I think it will be very interesting to see how it runs again 4 years from now. Could this be the campaign that puts over-the-top negative ads on ice. Will the next Republican candidate take pause.
<
p>
If that is the case then it was worth missing a little beef.
to a point. But what’s he gonna do about it. There is no place for policy in a political campaign. Campaigns are about message and policy is not amenable to a message. A message must have a trace of policy, let’s say a veneer of policy, but in fact there have been very few substantive, policy discussions during this campaign season.
The Globe’s interest in covering substance has diminished significantly over the years. For much of the campaign they appeared to be competing with the rag that’s handed out for free at the T station at 3:30pm every day.
<
p>
I will give a tip o’ the cap to the Globe editorial page. They have consistently attempted to inject substance into the issues that should have been discussed in the campaign. And in at least one case stopped an inaccurate and superficial attack dead in its tracks.
But whether the electorate is incapable of turning off Dancing with the Stars to watch the next leader of their government discuss the healthcare funding method or the curriculum frameworks or the high recidivism rates or whether it’s the media’s fault for not making an effort at journalism, it doesn’t matter now. Adam, you had your shot. You blew it. We had a 6 week debate about rapists and murderers, $180 extra dollars a year in your pocket or bus service for your kids, higher education for 350 children of illegal immigrants, and one-party rule with a Democratic governor or one-party rule with a Republican governor. Oh, and a bunch of highway/tunnel engineers with their heads up their asses.
Here’s a piece which is EXACTLY what Adam says is missing – what is the likely impact of a Democrat in the corner ofice? So why didn’t HE write this story?
<
p>
http://www.capecodon…
That link doesn’t work.
Elect Patrick, pay the bill
<
p>
Published: November 2, 2006)
<
p>
Copyright © Cape Cod Times. All rights reserved.
<
p>
Why bother? What difference does it make having a Republican governor, when 87 percent of the Legislature is Democrats, and every veto can be overridden and every bill can be passed, no matter what the governor says or does?
<
p>
Why not let the Democrats get back in there for a while? Everybody knows that the reason that bills don’t pass and nothing gets done is that the Legislature would rather fail themselves than let a Republican governor have an ounce of credit. So, why not let the Democrat win, and see if necessary bills that have been pent up for years and years can get passed?
<
p>
Because legislation is only one small part of the governor’s job. In fact, it may not even be the most important part.
<
p>
The governor has the responsibility to balance the budget. Every year, the Democrat Legislature can send any porked-up version of spending that they like, passing everything even if we don’t have the money, knowing that the governor must by law make cuts to bring it into line with actual revenues. After the cuts are made, they pick and choose which items to bring forward for an override, knowing that they can tell the voters that they voted for the pet project, but that bad Republican governor cut it out.
<
p>
Any budget line that has been decreased or cut is really the responsibility of the Legislature, which can override as easily as it can breathe – and avoid responsibility at the same time.
<
p>
This dance of legislation is performed every year, and the governor has been set up to lose since William Weld lost the ability to sustain an override. No, the more important part of the governor’s job is the executive control of state agencies, and the ability to carry out policy through regulations.
<
p>
Consider what the Registry of Motor Vehicles was like before the Republicans were elected, or the Department of Revenue, or just about any state agency. The number of state employees has been vastly shrunk, yet services have continued. The Metropolitan District Commission, a notoriously inefficient state agency and patronage haven, was abolished and its functions folded into the new Department of Conservation and Recreation. The only memory of it now is its building, which the state can sell.
<
p>
A similar combining is planned for the Mass. Turnpike Authority and Mass Highway, eliminating high-paid managers doing the same jobs. The next step is to combine the pension systems around the state, and allow towns to buy into the General Insurance Commission rather than try to negotiate their own health insurance plans. But it will never happen under the union-endorsed Democrat because too many middle-level state jobs would be lost.
<
p>
The most frightening illustration of the effects of single-party rule was on a television interview with John Keller recently. When Speaker Sal DiMasi was asked if he felt there was any common ground with the liberal Deval Patrick, he answered, ”Oh absolutely, yeah. With Deval Patrick and the legislative leadership, yes I do. When we pass legislation, we don’t want a Republican governor setting regulations that go against the legislative intent. We feel that with a Democrat there, we can accomplish great things, not only through the legislative intent under the legislation we pass, but we know that a Democratic governor will be following what the intent was and not [imposing] his political views by regulation and through enforcement through the agencies…”
<
p>
There you have it. A candid explanation of how the leadership of the Legislature regards the possibility of a Democratic governor. No more restraint, no more testing to see if regulations are practical or cost effective. No Republican governor to even blow the whistle on the most outrageous schemes until it’s too late.
<
p>
The checks will be payable to the commonwealth of Massachusetts.
<
p>
thanks Mr. Porcupine. I don’t agree with its conclusions but at least it lays out a substantive argument for a loyal opposition.
<
p>
My only concern with the piece is that it appears (no byline or attribution) to be an editorial or op-ed. If that’s the case, then I would add the CCT’s editorial staff and op-ed contributors to the Globe’s group as those willing to step out on the policy limb and saw away. I just wish this level of substance was being presented by our reporter/journalists.
… but a different kind of opposition party than the feeble Republicans are right now.
<
p>
An effective opposition should concentrate on issues of fiscal responsibility and efficiency, and lose the militarism, homophobia, and reactionary social policies that now characterize the Republican party nationally.