Doug:
I was just re-watching the episode of Crossfire with guest Jon Stewart. If you haven't seen it, please take a look. It got me thinking: are we as bad as Crossfire was? Are we just partisan hacks spewing the political message? I don't think so, but I thought I'd ask your opinion about Jon Stewart, Crossfire, and Blank v. Blank.
David:
Re-watching episodes of Crossfire? You need to get a hobby.
Doug:
I think that this episode is historic and had at least a small impact on TV punditry.
David:
Sometimes, we probably are that bad. When we recently asked our readers to ask us questions, Elle requested we offer up more real discussion, and less "gotcha" type of responses. I've taken that to heart, and I think you have always had that attitude towards the blog. But sometimes, we're brothers and talk to each other like brothers. And sometimes, we digress to political talking points.
Doug:
Well, I don't think I fall back on talking points because I don't know what the Democratic talking points are. I try to come at each position through a consistent philosophy. And I don't even know what a "gotcha" response is... can you give an example?
David:
Talking points are the messaging that each party tries to put together to convey their side of an issue. If you are watching MSNBC then you are receiving Democratic talking points. If you get your news from the New York Times, you are receiving Democratic talking points. The reason for that is they interview top Democrats for their stories. Fox News relies more heavily on conservatives, and their stories reflect more of the Republican talking points. Talking points are very important in politics. You want to craft a narrative to fit the facts at hand, to benefit your party or to hurt the other.
Doug:
I read a lot of varied sources, therefore I must "receive" (your word) lots of different "talking points," some of which must be contradictory. But "talking points" are not the same as "framing" an issue. Framing is about understanding, and making analogies. Different people can come to the same frame without being told what the "talking points" for the day are.
But can you give an example of a "gotcha" response?
David:
If all of your sources are from the left-leaning media, then you certainly are receiving Democratic talking points, and framing the story is exactly what talking points are about. It's about framing the facts to benefit a certain narrative. Party leaders will literally create a list of bullet points to promote their agenda. Any story, legislation, or set of facts will fall within this process. They will disseminate the list of points to their surrogates so they are all on the same page when they talk to the public or the media. This reinforces the narrative their side is selling. They may leave out key information if it doesn't fit, and promote other information that presents their narrative in a better light. Pick a big story and then go to CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and any other liberal site of your choice. You'll likely find the same phrasing used. Often, you'll find reporters using exactly the same words verbatim at different sites. How can this be? Everyone they are interviewing for their stories have received talking point memos, and they are all repeating the exact, carefully worded narrative. Now go to FoxNews, The DrudgeReport, or some other conservative sites and you'll find the same thing. The more people that are out in public using the same language reinforces the message. Repetition is key.
Doug:
Right: "talking points" are often points produced by the party leaders, or a think tank. Framing is a more general understanding. I try to frame each issue myself, and so don't always agree with the Democratic leaders' talking points.
But what are these "gotcha" responses your friend Elle speaks of?
David:
You are misunderstanding a very important and key concept. If all of the news stories you read are using the exact same words, phrases, and ideas, how can you possibly come away with a different idea about any topic? You come away accepting that very narrative that has been framed for you. If every article you read, or every news item you watch includes the same information, and consistently leaves out other facts, you have nothing with which you even could form some alternate framing for the issue.
When I ran for office, all of the state house candidates and incumbents met with party leaders and discussed the phrasing and wording to use when talking about issues. It reinforces the party message, and also makes sure that everyone is on the same page. You are not required to use their language, but the talking points are carefully considered, and the phrasing itself may touch on several themes that are all woven together. On the national scale, there are many paid staff people whose only job is to analyze issues and to weave together talking points to further the entire political agenda. You and I, and all of America, are manipulated on a daily basis. Politicians and their surrogates get talking-point memos daily. They then discuss these points with as many people as they can, especially within the media (including social media), and the talking points get disseminated across the entire spectrum of society to frame the discussion. Remember Clinton's use of paid trolls during the last election? Her campaign spent an estimated $6 million to hire people to create multiple identities to spread Clinton talking points across social media, to give an appearance of populist support, and to attack those opposed to Hillary.
Right now, there are very smart people who do this for a living, studying all sorts of issues and putting together talking points based on focus groups. They are not only framing the debate about ongoing issues like the replacement of Obamacare, but also framing the debate using wording to help candidates running for Senate seats in 2018. The language may be tweaked to suit a certain region better, like Montana versus Mississippi for example.
Do you really think it's just an interesting coincidence that within a single week, multiple Democratic candidates across the country, along with the DNC chairman, have all taken to using swear words in their speeches? And at the same time, the DNC is selling shirts with swear words emblazoned across them? What once was taboo, and would itself make the news because it was so rare, is now the Democratic calling card. Democrats have decided swearing polls well, apparently. After haranguing Trump for a year about him being too vulgar to be President, Democrats have decided they need to be even more vulgar. And now, it seems to be overflowing to their surrogates in media.
Doug:
Hmmm... you may be right that some think tank just released some notes on the topic. I hadn't seen either of those articles. But this is also my point about "talking points" versus framing: I certainly didn't get the memo on talking in the kids' vernacular. I saw a third instance this weekend of such colorful language: Senator Kamala Harris asked a very direct question. I wondered about it, but you make a very good point about it probably being a think tank memo.
I guess if this is what it takes to win over some Trump voters, then they should talk dirty to them. I would not want them to degrade women, of course, like some of Trump's comments. But if they need to be a bit more free with their language, then so be it. And, apparently, smart people use more swear words. Win win!
David:
Right. Republicans are bad because they are vulgar. Democrats are good and smarter, when they are vulgar. I don't recall you claiming Trump was smart when he used swear words.
Doug:
I don't believe Republicans are vulgar because of their use of colorful language. I presume that is what the think tank found out about Democrats in general. Maybe they even like it. I have no idea.
David:
Of course, sometimes the talking points from either side resonate more because they are actually true points that don't need coloring. Separating the unvarnished truth, without political shading, can sometimes become very hard. Sometimes, only top political party leaders have the actual facts, and they release only the ones they need to tell their side of the story.
I don't think we would ever reach the low point shown in this episode of Crossfire, however.
Doug:
You'll have to say what you think is the "low point" in the Crossfire video is. Do we not reach the low point because I never criticize your choice of bow tie?
David:
Ha. I have no nerd ties, professor.
This entire episode of Crossfire is a low point for that show, I'm afraid. It doesn't get any more ridiculous, or pathetic, than that.
Doug:
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that you think Stewart had a point? Or are you saying that Stewart being on the show was a low point?
David:
I can guarantee that the producers of Crossfire rue the day they invited John Stewart to appear on the show. He makes Begala and Carlson look fairly ridiculous. But only because they refuse to listen to what he is saying, and continue to treat him like a trained monkey, when he appears to be more thoughtful and interested in dialogue than they are.
Doug:
Wow, I think I agree with you. Did you know that Crossfire was cancelled shortly after this segment? It came back briefly in 2013, but the show was never the same after Stewart's appearance. Of course, political Crossfire-like shows didn't go away. In fact, there may be more now than ever.
David:
And there should be.
I generally agree with what Stewart is saying about their particular brand of show, where they invite hacks to spar back and forth while spewing the talking points of the day. The discussion is predictable, and at the end, no one is any better off than before. However, I disagree that we don't need a show like Crossfire. We actually need more shows that follow the mold of Blank Versus Blank. Many issues don't have a definitive answer or solution, despite mounds of data or studies. A discussion (sometimes heated) about these issues, and presenting all of the information should be informative and help people navigate through all of the information. As we have both said at different times, about many different issues, "It's not that simple". Problems are often much more complicated than a meme, and there are usually many factors to consider. Details matter. Democrats and Republicans serving in office usually have the same motivations for serving in office. They differ in philosophy. Neither of them is evil. We can help to present competing philosophies to find solutions to big problems. Right?
Doug:
"It's not that simple" can always be (correctly) pointed out. Except that Trump ran on an opposite campaign strategy. I believe that he actually thought it would be easy.
David:
But running for office is a different animal all together than campaigning.
Doug:
I so wish that were true. Of course, Trump has started campaigning, blurring the line between those two animals.
David:
Hillary also framed things as being simple and uncomplicated.
"I have to admit that a good deal of what my husband and I have learned (about Islam) has come from my daughter. (As) some of you who are our friends know, she took a course last year in Islamic history." - Hillary Clinton
Doug:
That link is more political porn. Come on: a fictional piece on what Hillary would have done in her first 100 days?! I still find it hard to believe that Trump's first 100 days are not fictional. I am just so happy that he is so incompetent; that may be our saving grace. But I think you will admit that you can learn a lot of details about a subject in only one semester. And there is a lot of Islamic history that many Christians have never heard of. I teach many a topic to others that I only had a semester of training in.
David:
Defending the former First Lady and SOS for getting a good deal of her knowledge of Islam from her daughter's class, are we?
Doug:
Sure. I have learned a lot from my daughter.
David:
While these examples are ridiculous, all politicians simplify out of necessity. It takes too long to explain the nuances and vagaries of all of the variables, especially when the variables change. Candidates use talking points to hit big themes, and then hit them over and over and over if they resonate. Many Americans do want to know the details, but you're right, many could care less, and only want the cliff-notes, dumbed down version.
Doug:
Another aspect of Crossfire was that people never agreed, even on the facts. Of course, this has only escalated with the current Republican administration's "alternative facts." I'd rather hear those academic elites (non-politicians) that know a topic well, and can comment on the merits of an issue.
David:
There is a very nice article this weekend from a Dickinson College philosophy professor, Crispin Sartwell, about what exactly is truth. It can vary based upon your belief system, or what you hear and see. "Truth" can be influenced by talking points, as not all truth is anything more than informed opinion. Rigid truths should ultimately prevail in the end.
Not all people who are experts on a topic are in academics. I'm biased that most academics are already biased in favor of a certain worldview that excludes certain possible solutions to questions, before the questions have even been asked. If you are biased in your beliefs, your comments on the merits of an issue may not be the same as someone with other beliefs.
It is ironic that you quote the most elite kind of academic expert (tenured Professor of Philosophy at a small liberal arts college in the east) in order to show that academic experts are biased. As our Granny would say: "Bless your little heart." But my point is that you can easily find another academic expert that would tease Sartwell's weak points apart. Most academics argue on the merits, not on "talking points" or with the use of colorful language. I want to see good debate. I want to participate in good debate.
David:
I have to say I find it just a tad ironic that you believe a tenured professor at a small liberal arts college in the East is the most elite of academics, and then say he is biased because of that fact.
I never did get around to explaining what a "gotcha" question is. It's the type of question one might ask to try to trap the respondent into a no-win type of answer. Like the old example of the prosecutor asking a witness,"Do you still beat your wife?" There is no yes or no answer that satisfies that question, if the respondent is not a wife-beater at all. Both answers are damning. If you say no, the prosecutor will come back with a follow up that you said that you once did beat your wife, then. The question requires some explaining to come up with an answer that makes sense. The question itself is designed to put the respondent on the defensive.
Doug:
I'm glad that Stewart went on Crossfire, and I am glad that Crossfire had a stake driven through its heart. It may be impossible to get to "truth" (let alone "rigid truth"), but as one of my good friends said, we can try to get it "less wrong."
I was just re-watching the episode of Crossfire with guest Jon Stewart. If you haven't seen it, please take a look. It got me thinking: are we as bad as Crossfire was? Are we just partisan hacks spewing the political message? I don't think so, but I thought I'd ask your opinion about Jon Stewart, Crossfire, and Blank v. Blank.
David:
Re-watching episodes of Crossfire? You need to get a hobby.
Doug:
I think that this episode is historic and had at least a small impact on TV punditry.
David:
Sometimes, we probably are that bad. When we recently asked our readers to ask us questions, Elle requested we offer up more real discussion, and less "gotcha" type of responses. I've taken that to heart, and I think you have always had that attitude towards the blog. But sometimes, we're brothers and talk to each other like brothers. And sometimes, we digress to political talking points.
Doug:
Well, I don't think I fall back on talking points because I don't know what the Democratic talking points are. I try to come at each position through a consistent philosophy. And I don't even know what a "gotcha" response is... can you give an example?
David:
Talking points are the messaging that each party tries to put together to convey their side of an issue. If you are watching MSNBC then you are receiving Democratic talking points. If you get your news from the New York Times, you are receiving Democratic talking points. The reason for that is they interview top Democrats for their stories. Fox News relies more heavily on conservatives, and their stories reflect more of the Republican talking points. Talking points are very important in politics. You want to craft a narrative to fit the facts at hand, to benefit your party or to hurt the other.
Doug:
I read a lot of varied sources, therefore I must "receive" (your word) lots of different "talking points," some of which must be contradictory. But "talking points" are not the same as "framing" an issue. Framing is about understanding, and making analogies. Different people can come to the same frame without being told what the "talking points" for the day are.
But can you give an example of a "gotcha" response?
David:
If all of your sources are from the left-leaning media, then you certainly are receiving Democratic talking points, and framing the story is exactly what talking points are about. It's about framing the facts to benefit a certain narrative. Party leaders will literally create a list of bullet points to promote their agenda. Any story, legislation, or set of facts will fall within this process. They will disseminate the list of points to their surrogates so they are all on the same page when they talk to the public or the media. This reinforces the narrative their side is selling. They may leave out key information if it doesn't fit, and promote other information that presents their narrative in a better light. Pick a big story and then go to CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and any other liberal site of your choice. You'll likely find the same phrasing used. Often, you'll find reporters using exactly the same words verbatim at different sites. How can this be? Everyone they are interviewing for their stories have received talking point memos, and they are all repeating the exact, carefully worded narrative. Now go to FoxNews, The DrudgeReport, or some other conservative sites and you'll find the same thing. The more people that are out in public using the same language reinforces the message. Repetition is key.
Doug:
Right: "talking points" are often points produced by the party leaders, or a think tank. Framing is a more general understanding. I try to frame each issue myself, and so don't always agree with the Democratic leaders' talking points.
But what are these "gotcha" responses your friend Elle speaks of?
David:
You are misunderstanding a very important and key concept. If all of the news stories you read are using the exact same words, phrases, and ideas, how can you possibly come away with a different idea about any topic? You come away accepting that very narrative that has been framed for you. If every article you read, or every news item you watch includes the same information, and consistently leaves out other facts, you have nothing with which you even could form some alternate framing for the issue.
When I ran for office, all of the state house candidates and incumbents met with party leaders and discussed the phrasing and wording to use when talking about issues. It reinforces the party message, and also makes sure that everyone is on the same page. You are not required to use their language, but the talking points are carefully considered, and the phrasing itself may touch on several themes that are all woven together. On the national scale, there are many paid staff people whose only job is to analyze issues and to weave together talking points to further the entire political agenda. You and I, and all of America, are manipulated on a daily basis. Politicians and their surrogates get talking-point memos daily. They then discuss these points with as many people as they can, especially within the media (including social media), and the talking points get disseminated across the entire spectrum of society to frame the discussion. Remember Clinton's use of paid trolls during the last election? Her campaign spent an estimated $6 million to hire people to create multiple identities to spread Clinton talking points across social media, to give an appearance of populist support, and to attack those opposed to Hillary.
Right now, there are very smart people who do this for a living, studying all sorts of issues and putting together talking points based on focus groups. They are not only framing the debate about ongoing issues like the replacement of Obamacare, but also framing the debate using wording to help candidates running for Senate seats in 2018. The language may be tweaked to suit a certain region better, like Montana versus Mississippi for example.
Do you really think it's just an interesting coincidence that within a single week, multiple Democratic candidates across the country, along with the DNC chairman, have all taken to using swear words in their speeches? And at the same time, the DNC is selling shirts with swear words emblazoned across them? What once was taboo, and would itself make the news because it was so rare, is now the Democratic calling card. Democrats have decided swearing polls well, apparently. After haranguing Trump for a year about him being too vulgar to be President, Democrats have decided they need to be even more vulgar. And now, it seems to be overflowing to their surrogates in media.
Doug:
Hmmm... you may be right that some think tank just released some notes on the topic. I hadn't seen either of those articles. But this is also my point about "talking points" versus framing: I certainly didn't get the memo on talking in the kids' vernacular. I saw a third instance this weekend of such colorful language: Senator Kamala Harris asked a very direct question. I wondered about it, but you make a very good point about it probably being a think tank memo.
I guess if this is what it takes to win over some Trump voters, then they should talk dirty to them. I would not want them to degrade women, of course, like some of Trump's comments. But if they need to be a bit more free with their language, then so be it. And, apparently, smart people use more swear words. Win win!
David:
Right. Republicans are bad because they are vulgar. Democrats are good and smarter, when they are vulgar. I don't recall you claiming Trump was smart when he used swear words.
Doug:
I don't believe Republicans are vulgar because of their use of colorful language. I presume that is what the think tank found out about Democrats in general. Maybe they even like it. I have no idea.
David:
Of course, sometimes the talking points from either side resonate more because they are actually true points that don't need coloring. Separating the unvarnished truth, without political shading, can sometimes become very hard. Sometimes, only top political party leaders have the actual facts, and they release only the ones they need to tell their side of the story.
I don't think we would ever reach the low point shown in this episode of Crossfire, however.
Doug:
You'll have to say what you think is the "low point" in the Crossfire video is. Do we not reach the low point because I never criticize your choice of bow tie?
David:
Ha. I have no nerd ties, professor.
This entire episode of Crossfire is a low point for that show, I'm afraid. It doesn't get any more ridiculous, or pathetic, than that.
Doug:
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that you think Stewart had a point? Or are you saying that Stewart being on the show was a low point?
David:
I can guarantee that the producers of Crossfire rue the day they invited John Stewart to appear on the show. He makes Begala and Carlson look fairly ridiculous. But only because they refuse to listen to what he is saying, and continue to treat him like a trained monkey, when he appears to be more thoughtful and interested in dialogue than they are.
Doug:
Wow, I think I agree with you. Did you know that Crossfire was cancelled shortly after this segment? It came back briefly in 2013, but the show was never the same after Stewart's appearance. Of course, political Crossfire-like shows didn't go away. In fact, there may be more now than ever.
David:
And there should be.
I generally agree with what Stewart is saying about their particular brand of show, where they invite hacks to spar back and forth while spewing the talking points of the day. The discussion is predictable, and at the end, no one is any better off than before. However, I disagree that we don't need a show like Crossfire. We actually need more shows that follow the mold of Blank Versus Blank. Many issues don't have a definitive answer or solution, despite mounds of data or studies. A discussion (sometimes heated) about these issues, and presenting all of the information should be informative and help people navigate through all of the information. As we have both said at different times, about many different issues, "It's not that simple". Problems are often much more complicated than a meme, and there are usually many factors to consider. Details matter. Democrats and Republicans serving in office usually have the same motivations for serving in office. They differ in philosophy. Neither of them is evil. We can help to present competing philosophies to find solutions to big problems. Right?
Doug:
"It's not that simple" can always be (correctly) pointed out. Except that Trump ran on an opposite campaign strategy. I believe that he actually thought it would be easy.
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated." - Donald TrumpReally?! Trump can be educated quickly though:
"After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy." - Donald TrumpReally?! So people may not want to hear that "it's not that simple". It appears that some Americans want to hear the opposite. In fact, it is even worse: many Americans don't even want to hear the otherside. I don't want to hear it like Crossfire did it, but I do want to understand the details in order to make informed decisions. We don't often get that from the party hacks.
David:
But running for office is a different animal all together than campaigning.
Doug:
I so wish that were true. Of course, Trump has started campaigning, blurring the line between those two animals.
David:
Hillary also framed things as being simple and uncomplicated.
"I have to admit that a good deal of what my husband and I have learned (about Islam) has come from my daughter. (As) some of you who are our friends know, she took a course last year in Islamic history." - Hillary Clinton
Doug:
That link is more political porn. Come on: a fictional piece on what Hillary would have done in her first 100 days?! I still find it hard to believe that Trump's first 100 days are not fictional. I am just so happy that he is so incompetent; that may be our saving grace. But I think you will admit that you can learn a lot of details about a subject in only one semester. And there is a lot of Islamic history that many Christians have never heard of. I teach many a topic to others that I only had a semester of training in.
David:
Defending the former First Lady and SOS for getting a good deal of her knowledge of Islam from her daughter's class, are we?
Doug:
Sure. I have learned a lot from my daughter.
David:
While these examples are ridiculous, all politicians simplify out of necessity. It takes too long to explain the nuances and vagaries of all of the variables, especially when the variables change. Candidates use talking points to hit big themes, and then hit them over and over and over if they resonate. Many Americans do want to know the details, but you're right, many could care less, and only want the cliff-notes, dumbed down version.
Doug:
Another aspect of Crossfire was that people never agreed, even on the facts. Of course, this has only escalated with the current Republican administration's "alternative facts." I'd rather hear those academic elites (non-politicians) that know a topic well, and can comment on the merits of an issue.
David:
There is a very nice article this weekend from a Dickinson College philosophy professor, Crispin Sartwell, about what exactly is truth. It can vary based upon your belief system, or what you hear and see. "Truth" can be influenced by talking points, as not all truth is anything more than informed opinion. Rigid truths should ultimately prevail in the end.
Not all people who are experts on a topic are in academics. I'm biased that most academics are already biased in favor of a certain worldview that excludes certain possible solutions to questions, before the questions have even been asked. If you are biased in your beliefs, your comments on the merits of an issue may not be the same as someone with other beliefs.
"Let us take for a moment the commonplace claim that left and right, or blue and red, live in “different realities”—each fed by different streams of information, each figuring out what to believe by feeling for the consensus of people they believe are like themselves.Far from suggesting that the truth is a matter of coherence within a set of beliefs, or the way they hang together, this suggests that nobody on either side thinks that at all. Each side thinks the other side’s version of reality is globally false, and that its own is globally true.That does not commit anyone to saying they are both right—though they may both be quite wrong—but it does commit each of them to saying that a belief system can hang together very well and not be true.That is, if you’re on the left, you probably think the right is getting its information from bad sources, believing whatever serves its agenda, producing a false worldview. If you’re on the right, you likely believe that the mainstream media is feeding people slanted information, a false narrative.But both sides agree the coherence of their opponent’s worldview is irrelevant to its truth. In some ways, the better it hangs together, the more dangerous and deluded it is." -Crispin SartwellDoug:
It is ironic that you quote the most elite kind of academic expert (tenured Professor of Philosophy at a small liberal arts college in the east) in order to show that academic experts are biased. As our Granny would say: "Bless your little heart." But my point is that you can easily find another academic expert that would tease Sartwell's weak points apart. Most academics argue on the merits, not on "talking points" or with the use of colorful language. I want to see good debate. I want to participate in good debate.
David:
I have to say I find it just a tad ironic that you believe a tenured professor at a small liberal arts college in the East is the most elite of academics, and then say he is biased because of that fact.
I never did get around to explaining what a "gotcha" question is. It's the type of question one might ask to try to trap the respondent into a no-win type of answer. Like the old example of the prosecutor asking a witness,"Do you still beat your wife?" There is no yes or no answer that satisfies that question, if the respondent is not a wife-beater at all. Both answers are damning. If you say no, the prosecutor will come back with a follow up that you said that you once did beat your wife, then. The question requires some explaining to come up with an answer that makes sense. The question itself is designed to put the respondent on the defensive.
Doug:
I'm glad that Stewart went on Crossfire, and I am glad that Crossfire had a stake driven through its heart. It may be impossible to get to "truth" (let alone "rigid truth"), but as one of my good friends said, we can try to get it "less wrong."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!