It’s maddening enough to see media figures talk about their circle in the third person — the phenomenon of the CNN pundit who grouses that “the media is too obsessed with process”…right before nattering on about process. It’s shameful coming from a Beltway talking head, but so much the worse from a Bostonian “pundit” who writes for a supposedly “alternative” paper.
According to Bernstein, Martha Coakley’s problem is that…well, she’s leading and has been for quite some time. Well, we can’t have that:
When you’re the hands-down frontrunner in the biggest political campaign going, you’re going to get a lot of tough scrutiny from the press…It’s no surprise that Martha Coakley has been getting that tough scrutiny.
Scrutiny sounds like such a good thing when you use it the way the dictionary does, and not the way Bernstein does. For him scrutiny is pundits “unimpressed”, reacting to “hoopla”, “gushing” over other candidates, or declaring she “ain’t got no soul”. Oh, and the Herald. Bernstein does get points for admitting how laughable he and his media colleagues are…he can’t keep up the ruse that this amounts to “scrutiny” for long:
So far, Coakley’s campaign has been unable to change the topic. I think that’s because the storylines she’s pushing are campaign-process stories….None of this is more interesting to the media than the other stories — and besides, they all reinforce the assumption that she is the frontrunner, and thus deserving of extra scrutiny.
At least Bernstein is honest enough to admit that “scrutiny” is just editor bull session synonym for “whatever interests the people in this room”. Those of us not in the media might think this is an indictment on the media. Our first new Senator in decades, and the media is serving up clusters of process stories, odes to minor candidates and the Herald‘s latest muckraking. Why, one might think that this is a step back from discussions about foreign policy, the economy, or other major topics. One might think the media has some thinking to do about this shortcoming….
I’m curious to see whether the campaign tries to ride all this out, or tries something more aggressive to change the topic.
Oh, it’s Coakley’s problem! Phew! For a second there, I though Bernstein & Co. would stop examining their own navels. Close one.
Mr. Bernstein, it is columns such as this, and your other piece that you reference, that are part of the problem. If somebody should scrutinize Coakley in the real sense of the word — and what the heck, maybe the other candidates, too, if you’re feeling ethical — why not you? Do you want to step up and give Coakley real problems because she refuses to take hard stands on education or foreign policy? Or do you want to join the herd, trying to find a new angle to examine, er, “scrutinize” Coakley because she’s the front-runner and you’re bored?
There are a lot of people having tough times right now, and if the media isn’t interested in doing its job, I’m sure there are plenty of people eager to do it in your place.
Bernstein notes specific scrutiny
<
p>
<
p>then Bernstein notes “how Coakley’s handing it” – which is factually wrong. Instead Bernstein is citing how pundits are reacting to how Coakley’s handling it. Sabutai is right to make this distinction.
<
p>
<
p>I really don’t understand most of Sabutai’s post as I have difficulty following the logic of the criticism. The satire makes it difficult for me to understand the substantive criticism as opposed to the mocking humor.
<
p>Clearly Sabutai doesn’t like Bernstein’s take. Sabutai concludes Bernstein is not doing his job as a journalist. Unless I’m mistaken, Bernstein just chronicled all of the issues the Coakley campaign faces or has faced according to the media. I’m used to media criticism that cites factual inaccuracies and unsupported opinion. What is the substance of Sabutai’s criticism?
Bernstein is trying to pretend that the “issues” in the campaign include pundits being “unimpressed” or saying she “ain’t got no soul”. I think those are pretty clearly issues not for the electorate, but for the media. The electorate tends to care about jobs, Iraq, the environment — all things ignored by the sources Bernstein references.
<
p>Having established that the fussing of bored punditry is an “issue” that is hurting Coakley, Bernstein then wonders why Coakley isn’t handling it better. In this he seeks to dodge his own responsibility for propagating such useless blather. It’s the media equivalent of the bully’s cry — “why do you make me keep hitting you?”
<
p>Bernstein isn’t interested in asking tough questions of Coakley, and he certainly isn’t interested in doing his job relative to the other candidates in the race. His column is just his opinion about his opinion, and why that’s everyone’s problem but his.
this past session, when Mike was criticizing her campaign efforts. I can’t say that I’m impressed with the campaign in any particular way, but she’s doing something right, given the fact that she’s (so far) holding her lead.
<
p>I do think Capuano is out campaigning her, but he has a fair hill to climb in convincing the non wonks who will show up on the primary. It is hard to play defense on a campaign as Coakley has, but you can’t say she’s done a horrid job. She’s still winning last time I checked.
Coakley started with better favorables, better name recognition, more money, and better organization. I think she’s trying to wait out the clock so it comes down to those factors, rather than questions of issues and ideology.
First, it was that the male political elite in Massachusetts wasn’t giving Martha Coakley a fair shake because she is a woman. Now, according to sabutai, it is the mainstream and alternative media’s self-infatuation with their roles as the key shapers of the electoral dynamic of the U.S. Senate campaign that is actually causing Coakley problems in her campaign.
<
p>At some point during this campaign, probably at one of the statewide televised debate, Martha Coakley is going to be asked several fair questions and will have to give detailed about the following:
<
p>1) Her questionable post-conviction actions as Middlesex DA regarding the Fells Acre Day Care Case and equally dubious decisions she made regarding the Louise Woodward nanny case as a senior Assistant Middlesex DA
2) Her tepid attitude and inadequate actions regarding using the law enforcement authority and bully pulpit of the office of Massachusetts Attorney General to breakthe nexus of legal and illegal political corruption in state and local government contracting and bond finances that has caused the Commonwealth at least a couple of hundred of millions of dollars over the last years.
3) Her coziness with the political elite on Beacon Hill and how it has affected her AG office’s investigations into political scandals such as the one enveloping former Speaker of the House DiMasi.
<
p>I have heard from the avid Coakley supporters on BMG that these above issues don’t matter in a U.S. Senate race or aren’t significant ones for voters electing their next U.S. Senator.
<
p>Perhaps, the first or next time these Coakley supporters get illegitimately prosecuted by law enforcement authorities or examine their MWRA water and sewer bill, take an increasingly expensive ride on the MBTA, pay their 5.3% state income tax, or look in vain on their local property tax bill for Gov. Patrick’s promised state-financed property tax relief, then, at that point, they will consider seriously whether the issues of overzealous criminal law enforcement and an overwhelming culture of political corruption in the Commonwealth should be a significant factor in a voter’s decision-making process for the upcoming U.S. Senate election in the state.
God love ya, eddiecoyle, you have produced a classic examply of how women candidates are held responsible for every bloody thing that goes wrong. It’s like the “mom syndrome” – something has gone wrong in my life, therefore, it’s my mother’s fault.
<
p>Let’s examine:
Martha is now responsible for all improper prosecutions throughout the Commonwealth, forward and backward looking, due to the Middlesex Fells Acre daycare case that was opened by Scott Harshbarger, conviction upheld by the SJC, overturned, reinstated….and yet, Harshbarger went on to run for Governor, gets trotted out at events. Where’s the hue and cry? And the Woodward case: The child is dead, the nanny admitted to not being as gentle as she might have been. You may think the prosecution was “zealous” but that poor baby didn’t kill himself. Both sides agree that the child died of intracranial bleeding, and the timing of the incident that was questionable. By all means, lets hang this on Martha, too. And hang ALL the questionable prosecutions on her, because when something goes wrong, let’s blame “mommie.”
<
p>
This one was my favorite…because decades of a culture on Beacon Hill is to be placed on Martha – and not the AGs before her, Reilly, Harshbarger. The MWRA was established in 1984, Harshbarger territory. Martha wasn’t even at the DAs at that time, she was in private practice. And even when she joined the DA, she wasn’t in white collar, political corruption – she was in the child abuse unit. No blame for Harshbarger and Reilly, who allowed that culture to get a foot hold, and somehow Martha’s supposed to clean up 20 plus years of this stuff in 2 years?
<
p>And given the pile-on – we may as well blame “mommie” for Governor Patrick’s inability to produce the much promised reduction in local taxes, which we all know, pretty much hinges on local aid. Reductions in local aid, and revenue rules tie the hands of local communities…and that’s Martha’s fault too, evidently.
<
p>I’ve seen this show already during the presidential campaign, when Hillary was saddled with her husband’s baggage and now I am seeing the same thing with Martha Coakley, only she’s getting Harshbarger’s and Reilly’s baggage. This needs to stop. If you like Mike – great. Tell me why. But if you keep up with this stuff, there are plenty of women, having seen this show before, who will vote for Martha just to make sure she gets a fair shake. This is how I became a Hillary supporter- when the “show” came to Massachusetts.
This isn’t about gender. Tom Reilly crashed and burned from the same trajectory.
Coakley was criticized for coming out too soon, too aggressively after the passing of the Senator. If she hadn’t, she would have been criticized for not coming out strong enough.
<
p>Coakley is criticized for the Woodward case, but where’s the criticism of Leone, who was her partner in this prosecution?
<
p>http://www.wbur.org/2009/09/09…
<
p>
he be criticized for his part in that fiasco too.
The bill for overzealous prosecution is now past due.
there’s a dead child. This was not an academic exercise, but a real-life drama that played out in one surburban household, and later, in the courtroom. The nanny admitted she had handled the baby not as gently as she should have. Louise was also convicted by a jury, not just by the prosecution.
<
p>It’s also notable to point out that in 2007, a forensic expert in the case observed that “with science today, we could have exonerated Louise Woodward.” Yet, there was no such science THEN, and we have political junkies trying to hang Martha Coakley on that basis.
<
p>And as for Leone – he ran for DA when Martha ran for AG. Did you have anything to say then?
…but the child was not murdered. My understanding is that murder requires intent to kill and I never saw that intent on Louise Woodward’s part. As I recall the jury asked the judge whether convicting of manslaughter was an option and they were told no. Granted I wasn’t on the jury and did not hear all testimony and see all evidence, but from what I could gather if my only choices were guilty or not guilty to the charge of murder not guilty would have been a very easy verdict for me.
<
p>I believe Leone did mention the case when he ran for DA, but I second previous comments that since he’s not running for Senator, he’s not getting the scrutiny in this particular context.
She was just an au pair and really should not have been left alone with the baby as often as she was. Au pairs are not supposed to be left alone with infants for long periods of time.
You sound like you’re blaming the parents. There are, in fact, au pairs that specialize in infants, so it’s not a “generalized” category. In this country, au pairs can work up to 45 hours a week.
The prosecution from Middlesex County made the “shaken baby syndrome” argument to convict Louise Woodward for second degree murder. They won and they got a 15 year sentence, the critical element being intent. The prosecution argued intent to murder and the jury found intent to murder. On appeal, the judge changed the verdict and the sentence to manslaughter and time served, about 260 days.
<
p>I conclude the case was overcharged and the jury failed by finding intent, without compelling evidence.
<
p>The prosecution affirmatively presented a junk science argument, “shaken baby syndrome.” Who knew this was a method of murder by which intent could be inferred?
<
p>Coakley was the DA of Middlesex, played a role in the prosecution and campaigned for AG based on this high profile trial.
<
p>
<
p>I live in Suffolk so Leone’s work is Middlesex County residents’ problem. If he runs for US Senate, I’ll examine his record. That said, I have my concerns about Conley’s performance, especially in the David Woodmen case. Here is a young man who would be alive today if he had not been arrested and left face down in respiratory arrest. Nine policemen at the scene did not file incident reports and left the scene to get treatment for stress.
In the interest of fairness, can you honestly state that the science available in 1997 was “junk science?” Dr. Patrick Barnes, the star expert witness for the prosecution said in 2007 (10 years after the fact) that if the science available now had been available THEN, there would have been a different result. So now we’re going to hang Martha for what? Not having the science available to her then? Are you a lawyer, Neil? Who says that shaking a baby, which we know can kill them, can’t be considered intent? It’s just like freaking drunk driving – if you drive drunk, you know you can kill people. There’s the intent. If you shake a baby hard enough – you can kill him. It happens all the time.
<
p>This is Monday morning quarterbacking, and you know it. But…you don’t care. It’s not about fairness, it’s only about winning. This is how you push fair-thinking people into the other camp. Jesse Jackson Jr. pushed me into Hillary’s camp last year. The Cap boyz are doing their best to push me into Martha’s, if only to insure a fair shake.
<
p>
Clinical medical and scientific research communities are in disagreement as to whether it is possible to determine if a given head injury is due to an accident or abuse. In other words, the theory is not settled science. Accidents, by definition, are not intentional.
<
p>A significant and legitimate debate in the medical community about whether infants can be fatally injured through shaking alone, whether an infant may suffer head trauma and yet experience a significant lucid interval prior to death, and whether other causes may mimic the symptoms traditionally viewed as indicating shaken baby or shaken impact syndrome.
<
p>Given the reversal of second degree murder on appeal
to a finding of manslaughter. I conclude the case was overcharged, and that the jury failed by finding intent to murder without compelling evidence.
<
p>It is my feeling that the prosecution presented a junk science argument, “shaken baby syndrome.” I cannot attest to the prosecutions awareness of the controversy in the scientific community but the legal argument is indeed controversial and it does imply intent. To be fair, I don’t know what other evidence of intent was presented at trial, if any.
<
p>What you’re saying doesn’t really make sense to me, that by virtue of someone’s or perhaps many people’s allegedly unfair arguments, you would as a result choose to vote for the person who their unfair arguments unfairly criticized (but that is exactly what you’re saying and apparently you’ve done it before.) It’s seems reactive as opposed to deliberative. However, your vote is your choice for your reasons. And my vote is my choice for my reasons.
Brian Joyce was criticized for the same thing. Jumping the gun prematurely during Joe Moakley’s terminal illness.
Martha Coakley’s gender doesn’t matter to me.
<
p>I haven’t criticized Ms. Coakley for her handling of either the Fells Acre case (in our discussions here, I have defended her) nor for her role in the Woodward case.
<
p>I like Mike Capuano because I think he’s better suited for the job based on his record, and because I think that he’ll do a better job if elected.
<
p>I liked Deval Patrick more than Tom Reilly because Deval Patrick was a better candidate. I disliked Tom Reilly because he was far too cautious in his conduct of his office — the same criticism I direct at Ms. Coakley.
<
p>Did you support Kerry Healey because she was a woman? Was her defeat yet more evidence of gender bias against women?
Personally, I think some awesome candidates actually suck at the job they’ve run for….it happens. I try to choose people whom I think can actually do the job once elected.
<
p>And no, I didn’t support Kerry Kealey because she’s a woman…I didn’t support her at all. But that doesn’t mean that the MSM and some political junkies don’t write and say things about female candidates that they wouldn’t think of with a male candidate. There’s books on this crap.
I assumed that you joined me in opposing Kerry Healey, that’s why I mentioned her. I think each of us opposed her because of her positions, and I assume that you also joined me in rejecting the despicable campaign she led. Her gender was irrelevant.
<
p>I totally agree with you that the MSM and many (not some) political junkies demonstrate a clear gender bias. An important part of why I oppose such bias is because it is so destructive to the credibility of its source.
<
p>That’s also why I get a bit defensive when I am accused of gender bias. I have some (I think we all do). I work very hard to stay aware of it in myself, and to test my positions with data and evidence wherever possible. There most certainly are books on this crap, some of them very good.
<
p>I suggest that both gender and racial bias are far more pervasive than we like to admit. I have been convinced (from my own study and from several very persuasive researchers into feminist studies that I’ve had close contact with) that gender bias is not only universal but is the most significant bias that each of us — male and female — carry with us.
<
p>Men literally cannot conceive of the universe that women live in, and vice-versa. I suggest that we cannot eliminate this bias in ourselves, we can only identify it, name it, and attempt to recognize its influence on us. I think this is the same essential insight, albeit to a lessor extent, that we find in serious study of racial bias.
<
p>This is all a long-winded way saying that I agree with you that gender bias is a — or even “the” — major problem facing political discourse. Nevertheless, I think that your “mom syndrome” comment overstates and distracts from some very real and substantive differences that I see between Martha Coakley and Mike Capuano.
<
p>Clarence Thomas might be black — and he is a terrible Supreme Court justice. Michael Steele is black — and his politics are despicable. I reject an accusation that my criticism of either is racist.
<
p>I similarly reject the accusation that my preference for Mike Capuano is rooted in my gender bias.
or anyone, BT, of preferring Mike Capuano due to gender bias. Go back to all of my comments – and you will find that I have asked people posting the negatives to considering writing “I like Mike” commentaries and why…because I want to know what they think Mike’s qualities, attributes, experience, etc are and how he can do a better job as Senator than anyone else. I am still waiting for that commentary. As I pointed out previously, my family is supporting Mike, having liked and admire
<
p>That said – I am hair-trigger on gender stuff now, because of the treatment of Hillary Clinton, and my follow up research on the topic. I wasn’t even a Hillary-supporter until the BS in NH. Then, I was as committed as they come, giving money, making calls, etc. Women candidates have a tough enough job trying to run and raise money without being saddled with everyone’s assorted BS of what they think a female candidate should be doing and saying. It’s the perfectionism that many expect from female candidate that totally sets me on edge…while sins, and many of them, are routinely forgiven male candidates, even notable congressmen.
<
p>All I really want is a level playing field for all candidates. Unfortunately, it’s a tall order in many areas, for many reasons.
In my comment upthread, to which you are responding, I wrote:
<
p>
<
p>In my response to another of your comments, I wrote:
<
p>I read this:
<
p>as an accusation of “preferring Mike Capuano due to gender bias.” Have I misunderstood your words?
<
p>I cite these not to be argumentative or oppositional, but instead as an invitation to explore whether your perfectly understandable and shared passion for gender issues might be influencing your own perception of these exchanges.
<
p>I was a fervent supporter of Hillary Clinton during the eight long years of the prior administration. As I approached the Democratic primary, I realized to my chagrin that, when faced with the choice between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, a significant aspect of my support for her was her association with Bill Clinton (whom I greatly admire). I felt that this was a reflection of my own gender bias and was a terrible reason to cast an important vote.
<
p>I agree that we should stay aware of gender bias in our perceptions and discussions. I disagree that I hold Martha Coakley to a different standard than I apply to myself or to any other candidate (and I have already specifically identified Tom Reilly in this context).
misunderstand my words. My comment was a direct rebuttal to eddiecoyle’s comments, which made some broadweeping and less than fair claims about MC. Reread his post and mine…it’s up a bit, but reread it. It will at least give you context.
<
p>And I do get that you speak for yourself, and I never accused you of gender bias, have I? Here’s the problem when we have multiple commenters who go south when they’ve stirred the pot and don’t want to take the heat. We had a poster named kaj, who came on here with a post “a reason not to vote for Martha Coakley” – based on the 5-4 loss at the Supreme Court re the rights of the accused to directly cross examine lab technicians, and she was “offended” by any suggestion that people should be voting for MC because she is a woman. I pointed out that this was a non-starter with a lot of voters, (really – the rights of the accused to turn a lab technician into a pinata – not anything that someone – like my father-in-law for instance, cares about) and that she should focus what was good about Mike, rather than court room rockem-sockem robots. kaj said she would post a piece, and I’m still waiting for her post. And it was her post that inspired me to look at what people were saying about MC. We had some Pags supporter on here going right down the gender bias road, with comments about her looks and demeanor.
<
p>The deal is – I am likely to vote for Mike Capuano, simply because he’s an urban mayor and he totally gets what cities and towns are faced with. What I object to is the BS that some of his supporters are pushing on Martha Coakley. There’s plenty to like about Mike without the crap they’ve been engaging in.
especially with this:
“What I object to is the BS that some of his supporters are pushing on Martha Coakley. There’s plenty to like about Mike without the crap they’ve been engaging in.”
or anyone, BT, of preferring Mike Capuano due to gender bias. Go back to all of my comments – and you will find that I have asked people posting the negatives to considering writing “I like Mike” commentaries and why…because I want to know what they think Mike’s qualities, attributes, experience, etc are and how he can do a better job as Senator than anyone else. I am still waiting for that commentary. As I pointed out previously, my family is supporting Mike, having liked and admire
<
p>That said – I am hair-trigger on gender stuff now, because of the treatment of Hillary Clinton, and my follow up research on the topic. I wasn’t even a Hillary-supporter until the BS in NH. Then, I was as committed as they come, giving money, making calls, etc. Women candidates have a tough enough job trying to run and raise money without being saddled with everyone’s assorted BS of what they think a female candidate should be doing and saying. It’s the perfectionism that many expect from female candidate that totally sets me on edge…while sins, and many of them, are routinely forgiven male candidates, even notable congressmen.
<
p>All I really want is a level playing field for all candidates. Unfortunately, it’s a tall order in many areas, for many reasons.
As I pointed out, there are legitimate questions to ask Coakley, Capuano, Khazei, and Pagliucci. Even stripping the three you mention of their hysterical phrasing, those are legitimate issues.
<
p>I did not say there are no concerns about Coakley, I did say that Bernstein mostly focuses on trivial ones. There’s a difference. However, Bernstein would rather deal with self-important blathering about trivia. There is a difference.
<
p>PS: I’m not planning on voting for Coakley. But I don’t think supporting Capuano means that you must cheerlead pathetic journalism that has a negative affect on the attorney general.
This kind of stuff is routine in political reporting. The problem is that most pundits are political naifs, which makes them easy to spin. It’s been my experience that their arrogance is matched only by their gullibility.
<
p>For example, some of the early organizing in the various campaigns is evident to members of this group, just from their supporters’ posts on this site. Irrespective of their chosen candidate, BMG members get a sense of something happening on the ground.
<
p>Reporters and pundits, on the other hand, tend to be divorced from the nuts and bolts of the business. Rather than go and observe what’s happening where the rubber meets the road, most media types talk to “sources”. Those sources in turn spin the reporters.
<
p>Depending upon the source, the spin may or may not be accurate. The point is that it soon becomes self-reinforcing.
<
p>None of this absolves Coakly from the consequences of having, IMHO, run an excruciatingly bad campaign to date.
The only stories that might both be categorized as relevant to public discussion and internal to campaigns is whom the money is coming from? Journalists don’t need to get into how well a campaign is organized or this strategy or that strategy. They should be asking the candidates what their priorities and views on issues are, as well as background information, in order to assist voters in making an informed decision on election day.
Campaigns fill out scores of policy and process questionnaires from media and advocacy groups, and barring a clumsy or (honestly) unorthodox answer the general public response is a yawn.
<
p>And barring a real villain on a disclosure form, most folk aren’t all that interested in the contributor list.
<
p>Most people are primarily interested in the horserace aspects, for the same reason that people watch sports.
<
p>My concern is that much of the media (there are exceptions like Hillary Chabot at the Herald and Brian Mooney at the Globe)haven’t the slightest knowledge of, or expertise in, real-life politics.
<
p>Back to the issues: It’s amazing how often legislation succeeds or fails due to personal interactions having nothing to do with the merits of a given issue. Ditto institutional politics within agencies and their interaction with the personalities on the legislative side.
<
p>You can’t make an arbitrary distinction between policy and politics; one is a specialized subset of the other.
<
p>I just think that both are badly covered by the media.
“Most people are primarily interested in the horserace aspects, for the same reason that people watch sports.”?
<
p>It sounds to me like people are getting tired of it and is at least by implication cited as a reason MSM is struggling.
I don’t want to know who’s winning, if telling me that uses up the space or time that should be filled with information on which to base my voting decisions. ‘Who’s winning’ is not part of that information.
<
p>I am, however only a person, and not people.
Here’s a link from Politics Magazine.
<
p>You’ll note that not one of the players in the article even mentions public policy as a topic for their spots.
<
p>It might be a bit cynical for some, but it’s the way operatives think. Unfortunately the disinterested and rational discussion of public policy turns off voters.
<
p>The people interviewed in the linked article are on the media side of things; I tend to prefer field, but the same dynamic applies.
<
p>You appeal to folks’ emotions; and those folks include the media (most of whom are secretly frustrated sportscasters).
But I do take exception with one of them. I don’t buy the “people get what they ask for” argument in politics or media at large. We are offered very little other than talking heads and spinmasters on the MSM. And given their track record, why anyone listens to them is beyond me. I gave up on it back in 1992 when I was informed that no strong Democratic candidate was willing to take on George H.W. Bush. (I also turn down the sound when the Red Sox are broadcast on national networks.)
<
p>All that aside, I do appreciate your thoughtful comments and sabutai’s original post. Let’s keep their feet to the fire and demand thoughtful political reporting!