It Ain’t News

Your Humble Blogger is, as you well know, Gentle Readers all, a bit of a political junkie. I am fascinated by campaigns. I adore political rhetoric, and I find the manner in which a candidate chooses his message and its accoutrements a source of endless interest. That’s me. I suspect that many journalists, perhaps most journalists are also interested in that particular subject. And it is interesting. But it ain’t news.

The Hartford Courant did not have any mention of Coup Pad Thai on the front page this morning, but it did have an article (below the fold, anyway) by Mark Pazniokas called Lamont's Approach Leaves Some Perplexed. The article is about two ads that Ned Lamont is paying for, on the theme of Senator Lieberman’s “turncoat” politics. Mr. Pazniokas thinks the ads indicate that Mr. Lamont “still is chasing the Democrats” rather than appealing to independent voters. He quotes or paraphrases the following, in order: Ken Dautrich, prof. of public affairs; “consultants to other Democratic campaigns”; Dan Gerstein, Mr. Lieberman’s communication director; and Tom Swan, Mr. Lamont’s campaign manager.

OK, first of all, why on earth would you ask one candidate’s employee to talk about whether the other candidate’s ad is a good idea? What on earth did you expect him to say? ‘Wow, that’s a wonderful ad; they’ll probably win now’? I mean, yes, if there is some controversy over the facts in the ad, then you could ask the opposition to comment on those facts, but the quote here—wait, I’ll give it to you.

Dan Gerstein, the communication director of the Lieberman campaign, said Lamont's continuing focus on Democratic voters is not what he expected post-primary.

"It is somewhat perplexing to us that Ned is choosing to rerun the primary," Gerstein said.

Because, of course, it is news if one camp is perplexed by the other camp’s tactics, and furthermore, it is inconceivable that anybody would misrepresent their emotions on such a matter when trying to keep all the plates spinning in front of the press. Wait, no. No, it isn’t. Neither is it news if unnamed consultants disagree with what other, rival consultants are doing in different races. Really, it isn’t. Frankly, it wouldn’t even be news if we had their names, but without that, no, it just ain’t news.

Furthermore, there really isn’t any reason for a newspaper to quote from television ads, unless of course there is some question about the accuracy of the statements. No, it just seems like the newspaper wants in on that tv ad action. Mr. Pazniokas not only fills us in on two ads from Mr. Lamont, but also describes one from Mr. Lieberman for good measure. Because why bother to report news, if you can just tell people what was on television last night.

Yes, I am particularly cranky about this one because I support Mr. Lamont and loathe Senator Lieberman, and I think this article is trying on a narrative about the campaign that is favorable to the Senator. So when I focus my complaint on the total lack of news value and the distraction from actual news, keep in mind, Gentle Reader, that I am more upset about this than I would be by a similar story that talked about how Senator Lieberman’s campaign was in disarray, after he sacked the incompetents who lost him the primary and no Democrats would take his money. My complaints would still be valid—at least if the newswriter interviewed un-named consultants who weren’t involved in the campaign and Mr. Lamont’s press people about how the thing was playing out. But I wouldn’t necessarily be typing them into the blog. I admit that. But I still think the complaints are valid.

Now, then. Because I am interested in these things, and Gentle Readers are either interested or have long since stopped reading, my own feeling about the ads in question is that they are pretty dopey. The first one is particularly dumb, and it’s totally unclear why Mr. Lamont’s supporters are turning their coats. Wouldn’t it be funnier to show supposed supporters of the actual turncoat with their coats inside out? Frankly, the ad just doesn’t work. The second one, with the Sox fan and Yankee fan, works much better.

The reason it works, and what Mr. Pazniokas totally does not get, is that it shows the anger people have for Senator Lieberman, who appears to be willing to do anything to stay in power. He betrayed his party, and frankly even independents make a distinction between standing up to your party and betraying it. And that, I think, is the battleground here. Mr. Lieberman is portraying himself as a true independent, a man of principle, who is above party politics. In his own ad, he erases the line between Democrats and Republicans on a big chalkboard. Which is pretty dopey itself, but makes the point. The Sox/Yankees ad makes the point that if you start by saying you will always be a Democrat, and then run as an independent because the Democrats want somebody else, then what you are is not an independent but a jerk. Like (unspoken, but clear) somebody who roots for the Sox, but only when they are winning.

You see, Mr. Pazniokas, the ad is not aimed at Democrats. The ad is aimed at independents, people like John Scalzi, who primarily think of themselves as not suckers. They don’t join political parties because they think of parties as for suckers, they want to have more choices on Election Day because they suspect that the two candidates from the major party are playing them for suckers, and they like the idea of mavericks and loose cannons. If Mr. Lamont is going to win in November, and I think he just might, it will be because those unaffiliated voters think Senator Lieberman is trying to make suckers out of them. If Senator Lieberman is going to win, it is because those same voters think that he is a principled maverick, who is playing the political parties for suckers. That’s what the turncoat ad is about.

Which brings YHB to what we were on about two and a half years ago. I felt then that emphasizing the way Our Only President had betrayed the members of his own party was a good way to influence independents. Now, Mr. Lamont’s people seem to think the same, with Sen. Lieberman. Naturally, I agree with them. But none of it is news.

chazak, chazak, v’nitchazek,
-Vardibidian.