Pawlenty's "red hot smoking wife" a calculated tittilation

A topless First Lady?

While it’s arguably inappropriate, sexist objectification of his spouse to bolster his career when lame-duck MN Governor Pawlenty describes her as his “red-hot smoking wife,” I disagree with Wonkette’s characterization that it’s “two years early.” If Obama hadn’t started early he might not be President, and remember Pawlenty isn't exactly breaking new ground: Senator McCain tried to woo votes from Harley riders by suggesting his wife enter the topless Miss Buffalo Chip contest in Sturgis in 2008.

If voters made their choices rationally the political calculus of candidates and campaigns would be very different. Pawlenty used his wife to further his personal goals. Voters often rationalize when interviewed, but research proves the decisions are more often based on emotion than intellectual evaluation.

Campaigns get longer and more costly all the time because mainstream media producers see candidate spending as helping their own bottom lines. In other words, it’s also arguably a conflict of interest to base so much of the determination of a campaign’s viability on successful fund-raising. True, in many cases advertising is a crucial factor, and we all accept that one of the keys to advertising success is repetition across a wide range of media to generate the maximum number of impressions. Yet wouldn’t it be refreshing for a network or newspaper to cap the dollar amount on political ads they’d take at some reasonable level?

Voters report they’re actually annoyed by the saturation of TV as elections approach; in some cases the result seems to be tuning out altogether. Meanwhile where are the balancing stories about what the candidates have actually accomplished, how a candidate runs an efficient and fiscally restrained campaign focused on issues instead of fund-raising, or which ads are to distract from facts or obscure their votes while echoing slogans and talking points in much the same way Budweiser hammers away with their “King of Beer” message.

Pawlenty knows “earned” media coverage is less costly than buying ads, and he’s got the recent examples of Palin and Bachmann proving the press loves provocative statements more than substantive discussion. Any “news” outlet is reliant on ad revenues, which are in turn driven by ratings.

Look how quickly most mainstream media companies jumped on the Shirley Sherrod story – a hint of controversy and the race for viewers/readers was on without what we used to think of as journalistic integrity, all in pursuit of the mighty dollar. Pawlenty certainly doesn’t want the national press talking to disgruntled Minnesotans or economists about how his “no new taxes” mythology has driven down quality of life and scuttled the state budget.

Look for conflicts of interest in coverage, and follow the money if you want to understand Pawlenty — but don’t underestimate either his political savvy or the impact his “red-hot smoking wife” may have on voters and donors.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Modern patriotism isn't so different

To be a true patriot, a pro-republic American, is to recognize the role of civic virtue, of participation in the public affairs of the community, and to be among the men and women of whom future generations of Americans will say, "They were worthy of their city and their nation."

Gary Hart, in a recent Op-Ed, said:

"No single step would revitalize our fearful national spirit than a new era of civic republicanism. The single best vehicle to achieve this goal is the proposed Serve America Act sponsored by Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch. It is a genuinely bipartisan response to President Obama’s challenge to Americans of all ages to serve the national community."

It would be refreshing to see the media focus less on the whining of political wanna-be pundits and apologist politicians whose goals have obvious resonance to special interests that have overhwelmed the relationship between elected officials and those they represent, and more on the inspirational leadership exemplified by the late Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch in authoring that bill.

Reporters, and news producers, love controversy - it's good for ratings, and the coverage of "news" is clearly a business in the 21st Century. There's never been a sexy sound-bite to be found talking about, VISTA, Habitat for Humanity, or the Peace Corps - you have to work much harder to tell these compelling human-interest stories.

But the country I want to leave to my son and his generation is much better when we take the time, and initiative, to help our neighbors and give to our communities - and so, too, are my son and his peers better when they join us in those efforts. The dangers of debt-fueled consumerism have become old news, as the pundits have led us on a hell-bent ride to blame whoever makes the best target in terms of their ad revenues, without any investigation into how best to recover.

A great way to start as we mark the quintessential American holiday, Thanksgiving, is for each of us to look within ourselves, to recall the lessons we've learned, to recall that our community matters -- to give a little.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

The problem with polls, and the media (including the blogosphere.)

Polling can always tell us whatever the person who constructs/conducts the poll was investigating - if we're given the raw data and a good description of the sampling procedure. But in practice even the data is usually glossed over in favor of a sound-bite summary tending to support the interests of the person and/or network doing the reporting on it.

Unless you know about how the sample of people was selected you really can't know anything more than what's reported about a poll. You can't know, for instance, if its findings are useful in any logical sense, because you don't know who the sample represents.  I can ask 21 people a question, and come back with really convincing looking numbers, but if I select who 15-20 of those people are it will darn sure tell you what I want you to think I learned.

An example of shaping a poll

Imagine I go to a GOP Town Hall meeting, and survey 15 people wearing shirts or carrying signs that say either "Nobama," or, "Joe Wilson was right!" I'll ask them one simple question:

Are you a) "for" Obama's government takeover of our health care system that he's pushing through the congress under the name of "reform" or b) "against reform" that will make changes that undermine the free market system that has given us the best health care in the world and cost the tax payers even more money?

OK, I've plausibly got 15 "b) against reform" responses now in my hypothetical example.  I'll ask 6 additional people, more or less randomly selected, and let's say they most of them magically favor reform (not likely, is it? But for the sake of argument, I'm getting 4 out of 6 favorable replies.)  I didn't even tack on the line about paying for illegal immigrants.

Now I'll report back for you based on that (fake) survey:

"In a [hypothetical] survey conducted Wednesday, only 19% of those responding favor the proposed reforms to health care, while  nearly 81% said they were 'against change.' That's more than 4 out of 5 in our survey who are hoping their representatives in Congress will stop the President's take-over of business."

If you believe what anybody in the media tells you without understanding both the sample and the data, all you know is what the reporter's boss wants you to believe. If you choose to believe on that basis - which you just might if it agrees with your political leanings - rather than examining the poll itself, then you're gullible indeed.  The good news is: the politicians on your side and the ratings-hungry networks (who are on the side of earning a living from ad revenues) both love you. They'll go out of their way to validate your "wisdom and insight" into the issue.

If the poll isn't conducted on a random sample, but merely open to those who respond...? Well, my friends, that will tell you a bit about the people who responded, of course, but one must be wary of extrapolating to draw any useful conclusions about a larger population. We call it spin. But knowing that they're gaming us doesn't stop the echoes.

How the media deliberately spreads misinformation

In fact, it won't surprise me to find this utterly fake survey example quoted elsewhere within days, if not hours.  Can't you see it, at DIGG maybe, or on another blog, or even on Fox?

A post at a prominent, liberal-leaning blog on Wednesday described a survey which concluded that, quote, "only 19% of those responding favor the proposed reforms to health care, while nearly 81% said they were 'against change.'" In other words, that's more than 4 out of 5 who want their representatives in Congress to stop the President's assault on insurance providers and let capitalism work.  

There you go, it's been lifted carefully out of context, and the quote is nearly character for character what I made up in the "report" above, and then the media echoes will persist even though the numbers are clearly unreal.  You see, now they're not reporting on the survey, they're reporting on the reporting, which is just an excuse to keep repeating the misleading numbers.

Misinformation mars the debate. I could easily have made the example go the opposite way, of course, but I don't want somebody to echo a story that falsely represents support for reform.  In fact, worded carefully surveys do reveal that over 90% favor "at least some reform."  But then, who wouldn't favor "at least some" unless they were making money from the insurance industry? It's like asking who wants lower taxes without considering how you'd pay for those government services you realize you benefit from.

You know that commercial media outlets rely on advertising revenues. So, do you follow the money? Better yet, why do you trust who you always have to report on things you care about?