Home > About Rich's Work > Rich's Blog: Redeeming Hope
Printable Version
Tell a friend
-
What's the (New) Story?
Guest: Bill Bishop, Reporter, Austin American-Statesman
Newspapers hold seminars for their reporters and more often than not journalists are taught to think about narrative and storytelling in their writing. Narrative is supposed to attract readers. Or so editors say. It’s interesting that the overseers of institutions that are losing popularity and subscribers somehow seem to know how to “attract” the “average reader,” but they do and reporters are asked to look for ways to employ narrative in their writing.
But at what cost?
Rich writes this morning about the “master narratives” of the campaign. We can see them forming – stories of war, of terrorism, of courage, of Vietnam and 9/11. Following the advice of editors and experts, journalists pick up these narratives and they become the template of the campaign and our public lives.
So Al Gore becomes the man too eager to change and to please. One Bush is the patrician who is baffled by a grocery checkout scanner and his son is the drunken dunce. Kerry is … Well, we all know how this goes on and on. Campaigns are now competitions among these master narratives, and reporters dutifully write their reports within the stick-built construction of these overarching “stories.”
My wife tells me that narrative is a perfectly fine way to construct a piece of writing. But she contends it comes at a price. And the price is confinement. Narratives are expressions about what happened, not what will be. They aren’t critical. They don’t even make an argument. They just are and in that sense they are no different than advertising. (The consultants must love the way we now cover campaigns.)
The master narrative isn’t good for candidates or the country. Can a president pick a course that conflicts with the story of his life, even if it’s the right thing? Not a chance. (See Meredith McGehee’s post.) And if voters pick their future on an unchanging “story” of the past, aren’t we giving up the democratic promise of being active participants in public life?
Like I said, we in the press love the narrative way of covering just about everything. (And if we can’t find the perfect narrative foil, some of us will make ‘em up.) But it might help us all if we gave up on the “story” and found instead some fact, some argument, some persuasion, some different way of looking at things, so that the new story of the nation and the world doesn’t turn out to sound so much like the old.
-
Straight Talk in NYC
Guest: Meredith McGehee, Executive Director, Alliance for Better Campaigns
One of the reasons that one of last night’s speaker, Senator John McCain, is so popular -- especially with the press -- is that he usually avoids the mealy mouthed rhetoric that most politicians affect. He has demonstrated in these last few years that he is often willing to offend some as reflected in his “straight talk express.”
Senator McCain’s choice of style as a politician contrasts markedly with both President Bush and Senator John Kerry. President Bush, following the theme the Republicans articulated during the summer, is using the convention to stress his profile as a decisive leader. He is making a clear contrast with what the Republicans have labeled as Senator Kerry’s flip-flopping. Stylistically, Senator Kerry also offers a clear contrast to both President Bush and Senator McCain, usually preferring to stay on scripted talking points and long-winded answers.
What are most Americans to think? After all, Americans historically have been attracted to candidates who come off as the plain-speaking populist. The vast majority of politicians in America fall into the habit of sticking with blow-hard political rhetoric, a special sort of double speak that leaves them hard to pin down.
At the same time, however, American political discourse has been forced more into black and white positions. Early on, candidates become labeled as pro-choice vs. anti-abortion, as pro-labor vs. anti-labor, as pro-tax vs. anti-tax, etc. Is there any room for being anything in between? This trend has become more pronounced as political consultants have become more powerful in American politics. This development is most clearly reflected in political television ads where snippets of comments or particular votes are turned into clear demonstrations of unworthiness.
As a result, it is next to impossible for a candidate running for office in America to do nuance. So strong is the hunger for “straight talk” in American politics that certainty and certitude are becoming the measure of candidates. What about wisdom and judgment? What about room for a true middle? -
Certainty and Certitude
Richard C. Harwood, President, The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation
Last night the Republicans got off to a fast start. They defined key issues they will run on, and how they will run against Senator John Kerry and his Democrats. Both parties have now clearly staked out leadership and character as one of the master narratives in this race. Iraq, the war on terror and the middle class squeeze will provide the substance. When it comes to leadership and character, "courage" has become the central thrust of these campaigns. Senator Kerry has positioned himself in relationship to his "service"; the president, in terms of 9/11 and the war on terror. On Monday night, the Republicans consistently sounded the notion that the president exhibits certainty and certitude, while Senator Kerry flip-flops in his unending uncertainty. In a nation that reflects on its unity in response to 9/11, and which now faces a number of challenges at home and abroad, what does certainty and certitude mean? In this presidential campaign, when does it turn into hubris and arrogance? And what role does humility play in all this -- and how might humility be exhibited in these uncertain times?
For me, courage is the ability to put a stake in the ground -- to have the willingness to articulate one's convictions clearly and concisely. This is the opposite of heated or angry rhetoric; of false bravado; of beating one's breasts in a show of strength. It is in opposition to obfuscating one's positions through double-talk and half truths, of trying to skirt responsibility for decisions and actions of the past. A person must show their face. Pretending is not part of the package. But there is another part of this. Importantly, it seems to me, courage without humility is almost impossible. And yet, so often when people seek to exercise humility it is in the form of lip service – a kind of feigned attempt at humility, one filled with practiced posturing and empty rhetoric. But humility requires a certain kind of openness: to see that one individual or party (or nation?) does not have all of the answers; that one cannot go it alone; that one must work with others. It calls upon people to demonstrate that they have learned insights in the course of their experience, and that they are willing to apply those insights in their lives, even if that means changing course or position in public. So, what does certainty and certitude mean these days? How should we think about them in terms of how our nation struggles with issues and looks upon these candidates and their campaigns? When does it serve to divide us, and how can it be used to unite us? -
A Different Look At The Convention
As the GOP gathers in New York this week, much has been made about the variety of voices that will be taking the podium. Like the Democrats last month, the Republicans are betting that if they assemble the right line-up, the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts.
Taking a cue from the conventions, I am pleased to announce a new feature for Redeeming Hope. Each day, I will be joined by four distinguished guests from the realms of journalism, academia, and advocacy in discussing the daily developments at the convention. By bringing leaders together in this blog space to discuss fundamental issues of public life, we hope to build on the success of The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation’s conversation series at The National Press Club and to allow more people to share their insights.
Rather than discussing who is scoring political points or the behind-the scenes minutia that are in ready supply elsewhere online, we will focus on the themes and tone that emerge from the convention and their impact on the election and public life. Be sure to keep up with the discussion each day.
My guests this week are:
Bill Bishop is a reporter for the Austin American-Statesman. Recently, he has written a series of articles called “The Great Divide,” which explores the implications of the political, cultural, and demographic divisions that are commonly referred to as the Red/Blue Divide. The series can be found here
Carol Darr is Director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet at The George Washington University. Previously, she served as the Acting General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Commerce and as Associate Administrator of the Office of International Affairs in the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Meredith McGehee is Executive Director of the Alliance for Better Campaigns and founder of McGehee Strategies, an independent consulting service that specializes in public interest advocacy campaigns. Formerly Senior Vice President and Chief Lobbyist for Common Cause, she was named by The Hill as one of the top nonprofit/grassroots lobbyists in Washington.
Jay Rosen is a press critic and writer whose primary focus is the media's role in a democracy. He is Chair of New York University’s Journalism Department and has been on the faculty since 1986. He teaches courses in media criticism, cultural journalism, press ethics and the journalistic tradition, among other subjects. He is covering the convention for Knight Ridder and his own blog Press Think
Thanks to each of them for joining me this week.
-
New York, New York
An article in this morning's Washington Post notes that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is offering protesters at the upcoming Republican Convention some advice on how to spend their time there - go shopping. This is yet another unfortunate example of a public leader treating people as consumers rather than citizens, though quotes from protestors indicate that, even as marketing, the announcement fails.
On a more positive note, in Huntington, NY town planners are demonstrating a good instinct when opting to hold small-group discussions to gather information before updating the community's master plan. Their initiative, which they call a "visioning process," taps into a deep desire among people in our topsy-turvy world: to be genuinely heard. You can read more about this effort in a piece I wrote for Newsday, which you can find here.