Monday, July 08, 2002
Weighing In on the Fires
This column ran on a Monday, instead of Sunday, because in late-breaking news Friday, it turned out that there actually was an environmentalist lawsuit, filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, over a forest-thinning project in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. So I had to re-write three paragraphs, because I'd been told by my friends at the Sierra Club (imagine, getting burned by the Sierra Club, if only metaphorically) that the only lawsuit had involved a site near Flagstaff, well out of the fire zone. I get countless emails from the Center for Biological Diversity, just not the one I actually needed for a column until after I wrote it. Luckily, Bob Schuster was able to insert my revisions, but not until Monday; the Sunday paper actually prints on Saturday morning.
My chagrin lasted about three days, because the following Wednesday, the Arizona Republic reported that the Hull administration pressed the Forest Service, successfully, to stop a prescribed burn in the fire area due to alleged health effects. (Our governor, Jane Hull, had been accusing environmentalists of causing the fire by excessive litigation until her own efforts came to light. Now it's too difficult to draw cause-and-effect conclusions.) It turned out that the Hull administration wanted to stop the fire-prevention project entirely due to complaints by nearby residents, but the Center for Biological Diversity lawsuit didn't object to thinning, but filed suit because they saw the fire-reduction project as a ruse to log older-growth trees; they'd withdrawn their objection to thinning the smaller trees. So now that Hull can be attacked for her anti-fire efforts, we've gone on to other matters here in Arizona. Of course, with the arrest of a suspect for starting the Rodeo fire, both fires were started deliberately, and the whole root-cause argument has been kind of mooted anyway. (My editor did cut the line that Hull knows as much about forest fuels as about alt-fuels, and either way we get burned.)
MONEY MUST OVERCOME CENTURY OF BAD POLICY
East Valley Tribune, July 1, 2002
Here’s the upside to blaming the Rodeo-Chediski fire on environmentalists. If facts this skimpy and causation this confused justify that claim, then conservatives better watch for what gets pinned on them .
Blaming the enviros means ignoring a century of fire suppression, leaving forests brimming with fuel. Several years of drought have resulted in current tinder-dry conditions. Historical records indicate that Southwestern multiyear droughts are the rule, not the exception.
Cattle grazing--not just “overgrazing”--eliminated the vast grasslands formerly key to forest ecology. University of Arizona professor Thomas Swetnam’s tree-ring studies show that prior to this century, the typical Arizona ponderosa pine forest burned once or twice per decade. The grasslands carried these frequent, lower-intensity fires, with flames under 3 feet, which prevented buildups of dead branches and other fuels. But today’s fires leap into the crowns of mature trees--trees mature enough to resist lower-intensity fires, but no match for an inferno.
Logging practices haven’t helped, either. The most valuable timber comes from the fire-resistant, old-growth trees, best able to withstand regular fires. The most dangerous trees, the small-diameter ones (12 inches or less), have the least commercial potential. And “mechanical harvesting” techniques often leave more fuel scattered on the forest floor and jeopardize adjoining tree stands.
The fire patterns of the past centuries changed because of people settling the West, bringing their cattle last century and building their dream homes in this one. As Dr. Swetnam noted, people love living in pine forests, just as they love living on picturesque flood plains, coastlines, and earthquake faults. People want to live among the trees, not remove them from near their homes. Fire-resistant metal roofs just don’t look as nice, and nobody wants “prescribed burns” in their neighborhood.
Gov. Jane Hull claimed that lawsuits have stopped the Forest Service from preventing fires. Unfortunately, according to the General Accounting Office, of 1,671 Forest Service fire-prevention projects nationally, a grand total of 20 got challenged in court--not always by environmentalists, but also by industry or tourism interests, or by neighbors who wanted the project not in their back yards.
Only one in Arizona, which would have cleared both large and smaller trees from a largely previously-logged area, faced court challenge. Anyway, litigation could play no real role in the Rodeo-Chediski fires, both of which started on an Indian reservation, where tribal sovereignty exempted activities from environmental lawsuits.
But never mind the facts, for some people it’s just too enjoyable to blame the enviros, as if they’ve been running things and Jane Hull, Jon Kyl, George Bush, and the long-standing GOP majorities in Congress and the state Legislature have no responsibility for anything.
If opposing commercial logging of large, old pines in remote areas, instead of culling the smaller, more flammable trees near communities, and one lawsuit involving some 10,000 acres (out of 300,000) largely previously logged are enough to condemn the environmentalists, then aren’t the legislators, president, and governors who haven’t sufficiently funded the Forest Service and the new National Fire Plan even more responsible?
If fires are a problem caused by a century of misguided policies, have many root causes, and will take much time and money to solve, then isn’t each member of Congress, which has increased the responsibilities of the Forest Service without increasing its resources accordingly, actually more responsible?
It’s going to take money, folks. There’s no way to fix a century’s worth of problems with proceeds from one-shot timber sales. Is it more important to save the forests, or to abolish the estate tax? Guess which matters more to our delegation, the forests or multimillion-dollar estates.
Sure, let’s hold environmentalists accountable. Just make sure to hold everybody else responsible accountable as well.
This column ran on a Monday, instead of Sunday, because in late-breaking news Friday, it turned out that there actually was an environmentalist lawsuit, filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, over a forest-thinning project in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. So I had to re-write three paragraphs, because I'd been told by my friends at the Sierra Club (imagine, getting burned by the Sierra Club, if only metaphorically) that the only lawsuit had involved a site near Flagstaff, well out of the fire zone. I get countless emails from the Center for Biological Diversity, just not the one I actually needed for a column until after I wrote it. Luckily, Bob Schuster was able to insert my revisions, but not until Monday; the Sunday paper actually prints on Saturday morning.
My chagrin lasted about three days, because the following Wednesday, the Arizona Republic reported that the Hull administration pressed the Forest Service, successfully, to stop a prescribed burn in the fire area due to alleged health effects. (Our governor, Jane Hull, had been accusing environmentalists of causing the fire by excessive litigation until her own efforts came to light. Now it's too difficult to draw cause-and-effect conclusions.) It turned out that the Hull administration wanted to stop the fire-prevention project entirely due to complaints by nearby residents, but the Center for Biological Diversity lawsuit didn't object to thinning, but filed suit because they saw the fire-reduction project as a ruse to log older-growth trees; they'd withdrawn their objection to thinning the smaller trees. So now that Hull can be attacked for her anti-fire efforts, we've gone on to other matters here in Arizona. Of course, with the arrest of a suspect for starting the Rodeo fire, both fires were started deliberately, and the whole root-cause argument has been kind of mooted anyway. (My editor did cut the line that Hull knows as much about forest fuels as about alt-fuels, and either way we get burned.)
MONEY MUST OVERCOME CENTURY OF BAD POLICY
East Valley Tribune, July 1, 2002
Here’s the upside to blaming the Rodeo-Chediski fire on environmentalists. If facts this skimpy and causation this confused justify that claim, then conservatives better watch for what gets pinned on them .
Blaming the enviros means ignoring a century of fire suppression, leaving forests brimming with fuel. Several years of drought have resulted in current tinder-dry conditions. Historical records indicate that Southwestern multiyear droughts are the rule, not the exception.
Cattle grazing--not just “overgrazing”--eliminated the vast grasslands formerly key to forest ecology. University of Arizona professor Thomas Swetnam’s tree-ring studies show that prior to this century, the typical Arizona ponderosa pine forest burned once or twice per decade. The grasslands carried these frequent, lower-intensity fires, with flames under 3 feet, which prevented buildups of dead branches and other fuels. But today’s fires leap into the crowns of mature trees--trees mature enough to resist lower-intensity fires, but no match for an inferno.
Logging practices haven’t helped, either. The most valuable timber comes from the fire-resistant, old-growth trees, best able to withstand regular fires. The most dangerous trees, the small-diameter ones (12 inches or less), have the least commercial potential. And “mechanical harvesting” techniques often leave more fuel scattered on the forest floor and jeopardize adjoining tree stands.
The fire patterns of the past centuries changed because of people settling the West, bringing their cattle last century and building their dream homes in this one. As Dr. Swetnam noted, people love living in pine forests, just as they love living on picturesque flood plains, coastlines, and earthquake faults. People want to live among the trees, not remove them from near their homes. Fire-resistant metal roofs just don’t look as nice, and nobody wants “prescribed burns” in their neighborhood.
Gov. Jane Hull claimed that lawsuits have stopped the Forest Service from preventing fires. Unfortunately, according to the General Accounting Office, of 1,671 Forest Service fire-prevention projects nationally, a grand total of 20 got challenged in court--not always by environmentalists, but also by industry or tourism interests, or by neighbors who wanted the project not in their back yards.
Only one in Arizona, which would have cleared both large and smaller trees from a largely previously-logged area, faced court challenge. Anyway, litigation could play no real role in the Rodeo-Chediski fires, both of which started on an Indian reservation, where tribal sovereignty exempted activities from environmental lawsuits.
But never mind the facts, for some people it’s just too enjoyable to blame the enviros, as if they’ve been running things and Jane Hull, Jon Kyl, George Bush, and the long-standing GOP majorities in Congress and the state Legislature have no responsibility for anything.
If opposing commercial logging of large, old pines in remote areas, instead of culling the smaller, more flammable trees near communities, and one lawsuit involving some 10,000 acres (out of 300,000) largely previously logged are enough to condemn the environmentalists, then aren’t the legislators, president, and governors who haven’t sufficiently funded the Forest Service and the new National Fire Plan even more responsible?
If fires are a problem caused by a century of misguided policies, have many root causes, and will take much time and money to solve, then isn’t each member of Congress, which has increased the responsibilities of the Forest Service without increasing its resources accordingly, actually more responsible?
It’s going to take money, folks. There’s no way to fix a century’s worth of problems with proceeds from one-shot timber sales. Is it more important to save the forests, or to abolish the estate tax? Guess which matters more to our delegation, the forests or multimillion-dollar estates.
Sure, let’s hold environmentalists accountable. Just make sure to hold everybody else responsible accountable as well.
Wednesday, June 26, 2002
Fact-Checking Only the Left Cheek
Instapundit more-or-less recognized the work performed by Spinsanity, Salon, TAPPED, and The New Republic in pointing out that Bush's frequently-repeated comments that, during the 2000 campaign, he acknowledged his budget plan might not produce billions in surplus but instead might cause deficits in the event of a recession, war, or national emergency--and he got all three (the "trifecta"). (What a laugh riot, that guy!) Well, nobody can find any evidence of Bush saying that during the campaign, no matter how hard they've tried. Bush is simply saying something that isn't true, but to Mr. Reynolds, it apparently doesn't matter much:
I think the "trifecta" thing has had so little resonance with me because (as I've mentioned before) I sure thought I remembered Bush saying that. Apparently I'm wrong, though.
So that's what "the power of the blogosphere" means. "I sure thought I remembered Bush saying that," but nobody ever bothered to check, and now that someone else has checked, "[a]pparently I'm wrong." That's it. "We'll fact-check your ass--provided it's to the left of ours."
Imagine if Al Gore was going around the country saying something both demonstrably untrue and substantively important.
Instapundit more-or-less recognized the work performed by Spinsanity, Salon, TAPPED, and The New Republic in pointing out that Bush's frequently-repeated comments that, during the 2000 campaign, he acknowledged his budget plan might not produce billions in surplus but instead might cause deficits in the event of a recession, war, or national emergency--and he got all three (the "trifecta"). (What a laugh riot, that guy!) Well, nobody can find any evidence of Bush saying that during the campaign, no matter how hard they've tried. Bush is simply saying something that isn't true, but to Mr. Reynolds, it apparently doesn't matter much:
I think the "trifecta" thing has had so little resonance with me because (as I've mentioned before) I sure thought I remembered Bush saying that. Apparently I'm wrong, though.
So that's what "the power of the blogosphere" means. "I sure thought I remembered Bush saying that," but nobody ever bothered to check, and now that someone else has checked, "[a]pparently I'm wrong." That's it. "We'll fact-check your ass--provided it's to the left of ours."
Imagine if Al Gore was going around the country saying something both demonstrably untrue and substantively important.
Tuesday, June 25, 2002
Next: The Secretariat-Affirmed Debate!
Another refugee to warmer climes from Johnstown, PA reacted to last week's column by noting that newspapers run "horse race" stories because they're more interesting to readers:
Newspapers run "horse race" stories because they are more interesting to the typical reader. After all, most fans would rather watch the two minutes the Kentucky Derby is actually run than watch the two hours leading up when they talk about training the horses and getting them ready to run and what might happen when the race starts. It's the way we're wired.
All too true. However, the newspapers then don't gripe that the horses are so focused on running the race that we never hear their views on jockey weights, track surfaces, grades of hay, or other important policy issues.
Another refugee to warmer climes from Johnstown, PA reacted to last week's column by noting that newspapers run "horse race" stories because they're more interesting to readers:
Newspapers run "horse race" stories because they are more interesting to the typical reader. After all, most fans would rather watch the two minutes the Kentucky Derby is actually run than watch the two hours leading up when they talk about training the horses and getting them ready to run and what might happen when the race starts. It's the way we're wired.
All too true. However, the newspapers then don't gripe that the horses are so focused on running the race that we never hear their views on jockey weights, track surfaces, grades of hay, or other important policy issues.
Monday, June 24, 2002
Which Came First, the Campaign Chicken or the Media Egg? (Part 2)
This column, which ran on June 16th, followed up on the June 9 dueling opinion pieces.
This particular column ran last Sunday, but I didn't get to see it--or write a column for yesterday--because the Coppersmith family (all but our too-young youngest child; maybe in two years) took a raft trip through the Grand Canyon for the past 8 days. We returned late Friday night, and I've got the bruises to prove it. When I walk to favor my banged-up knee, it plays havoc with my foot blisters, but at least all four of us missed the GI infection (thanks to Desert Pundit for the link; I only had some emails from a Colorado River runner listserv) that nailed a couple dozen boaters (including 4 in our party) in the Canyon this past week.
It's great to be home: flush toilets! The biggest kick, however, is being able to go into a room and close the door. Whoa.
AFTER ISSUING CHALLENGE, TRIBUNE BLEW CHANCE
East Valley Tribune, June 16, 2002
I don’t often take up Matt Salmon’s cause, but I do it today--to bite the hand that feeds me and prove a point about The Tribune’s political coverage.
Last Sunday, The Tribune editorial page, continuing its protestations that all this paper really, really wants is to cover politics seriously, threw down the gauntlet. The Tribune challenged campaigns to do something to let real campaign coverage begin. Announce important policy initiatives! Outline what you would do first, second, and third after taking office! Do something newsworthy!
Well, last month, the Salmon campaign released a collection of economic proposals called “Workforce 2010.” That plan may be wonderful or it may be terrible, but if you read only The Tribune, you simply wouldn’t know.
This paper isn’t alone; no media outlet has discussed the substance of the proposals. The Salmon campaign has gotten some press about the plan’s “bottom line,” its claim that Arizona will generate 500,000 new jobs over the next eight years.
They got much more press about a mistaken attribution, an overstated claim that University of Arizona President Peter Likins participated in its drafting. After all, that’s a typical “horse race” story, where a candidate posts a boring list of supporters on the web site and mistakenly includes Jane Dee Hull, then gets slammed by the governor for presumption.
(Actually, the real presumption is Hull’s--that her endorsement would help any candidate in 2002. Recent polls show Hull’s ratings as lower than Fife Symington’s during his criminal trial.)
So let’s review. Matt Salmon releases a 12-page economic proposal, and gets absolutely zero space in The Tribune. Salmon supporters (not the campaign, but does it really matter?) engineer a straw poll by East Valley chambers of commerce, and that made-for-media event rates as long a story as this paper runs on politics, plus a picture, plus the lead editorial two days later.
Newspapers don’t run horse race stories because there’s little else happening. Newspapers run horse race stories because they’re formulaic, impartial, and require nearly zero thought because they treat issues like tissues: two sides, no depth.
Substance, however, is hard. You have to know or learn something, or find trustworthy experts who don’t have a vested interest. You need to research facts and remember history. You also need lots of space to explain things, an increasingly rare commodity in the post-USA Today newspaper world.
In a perfect world, a campaign making any policy statement, “important” or “serious” or not, would have its claims and proposals first reported at face value. The opposing campaigns then would get an equal shot in the same article; they could tout their own, competing proposals or just shoot holes in the first campaign’s suggestions.
(It’s useful for voters to know if a responding campaign’s first, instinctive response is positive or negative. People say they want positive, but most times, negative is more powerful.)
Then comes the really tough part. A truly good newspaper would “connect the dots,” in today’s overworked phrase, between the competing campaign statements. Is 500,000 new jobs over eight years a lot in a state the size of Arizona today? How many jobs were created here during the Clinton administration? Do state government policies make any difference in job creation, or are they simply drowned out by national economic trends?
Do the policies proposed add up to anything close to the promised result, or is the campaign relying on fluff and sound bites, like wanting to balance the state budget by eliminating the sales tax exemption on soda pop?
If last Sunday’s Tribune editorial were a campaign promise, Matt Salmon’s recent experience showed that it was already broken before it was made. But it’s not too late, oh Tribune! Stop griping about the campaigns--and please get to work.
This column, which ran on June 16th, followed up on the June 9 dueling opinion pieces.
This particular column ran last Sunday, but I didn't get to see it--or write a column for yesterday--because the Coppersmith family (all but our too-young youngest child; maybe in two years) took a raft trip through the Grand Canyon for the past 8 days. We returned late Friday night, and I've got the bruises to prove it. When I walk to favor my banged-up knee, it plays havoc with my foot blisters, but at least all four of us missed the GI infection (thanks to Desert Pundit for the link; I only had some emails from a Colorado River runner listserv) that nailed a couple dozen boaters (including 4 in our party) in the Canyon this past week.
It's great to be home: flush toilets! The biggest kick, however, is being able to go into a room and close the door. Whoa.
AFTER ISSUING CHALLENGE, TRIBUNE BLEW CHANCE
East Valley Tribune, June 16, 2002
I don’t often take up Matt Salmon’s cause, but I do it today--to bite the hand that feeds me and prove a point about The Tribune’s political coverage.
Last Sunday, The Tribune editorial page, continuing its protestations that all this paper really, really wants is to cover politics seriously, threw down the gauntlet. The Tribune challenged campaigns to do something to let real campaign coverage begin. Announce important policy initiatives! Outline what you would do first, second, and third after taking office! Do something newsworthy!
Well, last month, the Salmon campaign released a collection of economic proposals called “Workforce 2010.” That plan may be wonderful or it may be terrible, but if you read only The Tribune, you simply wouldn’t know.
This paper isn’t alone; no media outlet has discussed the substance of the proposals. The Salmon campaign has gotten some press about the plan’s “bottom line,” its claim that Arizona will generate 500,000 new jobs over the next eight years.
They got much more press about a mistaken attribution, an overstated claim that University of Arizona President Peter Likins participated in its drafting. After all, that’s a typical “horse race” story, where a candidate posts a boring list of supporters on the web site and mistakenly includes Jane Dee Hull, then gets slammed by the governor for presumption.
(Actually, the real presumption is Hull’s--that her endorsement would help any candidate in 2002. Recent polls show Hull’s ratings as lower than Fife Symington’s during his criminal trial.)
So let’s review. Matt Salmon releases a 12-page economic proposal, and gets absolutely zero space in The Tribune. Salmon supporters (not the campaign, but does it really matter?) engineer a straw poll by East Valley chambers of commerce, and that made-for-media event rates as long a story as this paper runs on politics, plus a picture, plus the lead editorial two days later.
Newspapers don’t run horse race stories because there’s little else happening. Newspapers run horse race stories because they’re formulaic, impartial, and require nearly zero thought because they treat issues like tissues: two sides, no depth.
Substance, however, is hard. You have to know or learn something, or find trustworthy experts who don’t have a vested interest. You need to research facts and remember history. You also need lots of space to explain things, an increasingly rare commodity in the post-USA Today newspaper world.
In a perfect world, a campaign making any policy statement, “important” or “serious” or not, would have its claims and proposals first reported at face value. The opposing campaigns then would get an equal shot in the same article; they could tout their own, competing proposals or just shoot holes in the first campaign’s suggestions.
(It’s useful for voters to know if a responding campaign’s first, instinctive response is positive or negative. People say they want positive, but most times, negative is more powerful.)
Then comes the really tough part. A truly good newspaper would “connect the dots,” in today’s overworked phrase, between the competing campaign statements. Is 500,000 new jobs over eight years a lot in a state the size of Arizona today? How many jobs were created here during the Clinton administration? Do state government policies make any difference in job creation, or are they simply drowned out by national economic trends?
Do the policies proposed add up to anything close to the promised result, or is the campaign relying on fluff and sound bites, like wanting to balance the state budget by eliminating the sales tax exemption on soda pop?
If last Sunday’s Tribune editorial were a campaign promise, Matt Salmon’s recent experience showed that it was already broken before it was made. But it’s not too late, oh Tribune! Stop griping about the campaigns--and please get to work.
Wednesday, June 12, 2002
LiberalDesert Takes a Vacation
My family and I are taking a raft trip on the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon. There's no phone, no email, and no Internet, so there will be no new posts here until June 24.
My family and I are taking a raft trip on the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon. There's no phone, no email, and no Internet, so there will be no new posts here until June 24.
Monday, June 10, 2002
Which Came First, the Campaign Chicken or the Media Egg?
The Trib ran an editorial last Thursday (I can't find a free link), griping that the candidates in this fall's gubernatorial election weren't doing anything substantive, and it's the candidates' fault. Mark Scarp's editorial (Mark filled in for Bob Schuster while Bob was on vacation last week) ran the morning after I appeared with Chuck Coughlin on KAET's Horizon show, and Chuck complained that the Matt Salmon campaign couldn't get any press about their economic plan but could get publicity about the bogus East Valley Chambers of Commerce "straw poll" exercise. So, of course, the Tribune gave the straw poll as big a story as anything they've run on state politics this year, with a picture, and then the Thursday editorial, but if they've run anything substantive about the Salmon economic plan (such as it is--that's a topic for another day), I've missed it.
The Trib then responded to my piece, on the same day, basically saying that they'll open the op-ed page to the campaigns, and will give them chances to talk substance, but aren't in the business of "making" news. You can read the responding Sunday editorial here. (Of course, after saying that they won't make news, Mark then suggested a topic for candidates to write about, "what they would do first, second and third in their first 100 days in office." It's a fine line, apparently.)
The editorial reminded me of a tactic I've recommended to campaigns in the past--the Boring Speech of the Month. Editorial writers always complain that campaigns aren't discussing the real issues. It's a hardy perennial, part of our American love of democracy in the abstract but clear disdain for anybody actually running for office. So I suggest that candidates find some poor luncheon organization (they're always looking for speakers, but just to be nice I'd warn them in advance about the substantive talk, and do the Q&A first before you put the audience to sleep) and deliver a solid, substantive, and undoubtedly boring speech on an important policy topic.
The candidate isn't likely to convince anybody with the speech, but it could be billed in campaign press releases as a substantive policy speech--and, more importantly, the campaign would send a copy of the speech to the full membership of the editorial boards of the local newspapers. Nobody at the paper will read the speech, and nothing in such a speech will ultimately make a difference with the newspaper's coverage or endorsements, but if the campaign sends one of these "white papers" every 3-4 weeks during the boring, early stages of the campaign--when nothing is going on but fund-raising anyway--at least the editorialists can't claim that this particular candidate isn't talking about substance. It then becomes the newspaper's failure to cover substance, because it's boring, but it eliminates one of the typical, and apparently mandatory, shots at every candidate.
Are you listening, Craig Columbus? Craig is a candidate for Congress in CD-5, whom I'm helping and who is so like me in my first campaign that it makes my teeth hurt. His stump speech is like mine--I'd better talk about this seventh policy initiative because I just know there's somebody in this room who may still have some doubt after listening merely to the first six! Craig had the best "top rejected campaign slogan" for his campaign: "Vote for me, or I'll come to your house and explain my 192-page economic plan in excruciating detail!" Craig, you should just abuse the Tribune with substance.
I can't remember where I read the Pavarotti line; I tried to search for it but came up empty, so I couldn't give credit but it's a great joke.
CANDIDATES COULD USE A PAPER THAT COVERS THE ELECTION ISSUES
East Valley Tribune, June 9, 2002
Thursday’s Tribune lead editorial griped that the various campaigns for governor just aren’t doing enough to make noise (excuse me, debate the issues). This criticism reminds me of one wag’s jest about Luciano Pavarotti complaining about the size of a restaurant’s portions: He may have a point, but he’s not the guy to make it.
After all, if a newspaper thinks more attention should be paid to election issues, run the darn stories. While other states had vigorous primary campaigns leading up to Election Day last Tuesday, nothing’s happening here because the primary election is still three months away.
Elections aren’t like the baseball standings; a win in a June poll counts much, much less than a win in November. Demanding campaigns spend money three months before the primary, before most voters become remotely interested, is not just foolish, but counterproductive. Money spent now would have little effect, and becomes unavailable for the 30 days before the election, when early voting begins--shortened this year to 20 days.
To have an earlier discussion of issues, move the primary election from September to May. Holding the election before the heat starts, instead of during the dog days of late summer, should increase turnout and start the debate sooner. But it’ll never happen, because a late, low-turnout primary benefits incumbents, who also could be disadvantaged because the Legislature wouldn’t adjourn until nearly Election Day.
So, assuming our late primary date stays, if this newspaper wants more discussion of issues, it can--ahem--just do it. Every political campaign I’ve ever been around complains not about too much coverage, but about not enough coverage, much less in-depth issue coverage.
Each week, The Tribune could give the candidates--not just for governor, but other statewide and local offices, too--prominent space to write 200-300 words discussing a particular issue before the debates and attack ads begin. Print schedules of where people can go to see the various candidates speak (without an admission charge!) during the coming weeks. Publish issue statements available on campaign Web sites, and those sites' addresses. Run stories that don’t discuss either fundraising or polling.
That’s really what Clean Elections has done--eliminated a half-dozen easy, hack stories based on campaign finance reports. The delay while candidates await funding hasn’t slowed the number of press releases or public events (other than fund-raisers, usually closed to the nonpaying public anyway) compared with 1998 or 2000.
It has prevented many campaigns from purchasing early polls--depriving lazy reporters of additional easy “horse race” stories. Sheesh, without fundraising and without polls, there are only issues left, and apparently nobody wants to write about that.
I do predict that serious, issue-laden stuff will be among the least-read parts of the paper, at least until closer to Election Day. This paper’s market research is undoubtedly similar to national survey and focus-group data showing that while people may say that want more serious and substantive political coverage, they don’t actually read it until just before the election--and that date keeps getting later each cycle.
But it’s rank hypocrisy to attack campaigns for not firing before they see the whites of the voters’ eyes when this newspaper could be, and should be, asking questions, soliciting statements, and printing candidate statements about issues this paper wants discussed, as well as statements on the issues a campaign wants to discuss--and, just maybe, what issues a candidate wants the opposition to address.
Don’t blame the campaigns. Every candidate would jump at the chance to grab a fair forum, where ideas different from The Tribune’s official policy could be discussed without slanting or snide comments. If there’s a problem, this newspaper has the power to fix it. Today.
The Trib ran an editorial last Thursday (I can't find a free link), griping that the candidates in this fall's gubernatorial election weren't doing anything substantive, and it's the candidates' fault. Mark Scarp's editorial (Mark filled in for Bob Schuster while Bob was on vacation last week) ran the morning after I appeared with Chuck Coughlin on KAET's Horizon show, and Chuck complained that the Matt Salmon campaign couldn't get any press about their economic plan but could get publicity about the bogus East Valley Chambers of Commerce "straw poll" exercise. So, of course, the Tribune gave the straw poll as big a story as anything they've run on state politics this year, with a picture, and then the Thursday editorial, but if they've run anything substantive about the Salmon economic plan (such as it is--that's a topic for another day), I've missed it.
The Trib then responded to my piece, on the same day, basically saying that they'll open the op-ed page to the campaigns, and will give them chances to talk substance, but aren't in the business of "making" news. You can read the responding Sunday editorial here. (Of course, after saying that they won't make news, Mark then suggested a topic for candidates to write about, "what they would do first, second and third in their first 100 days in office." It's a fine line, apparently.)
The editorial reminded me of a tactic I've recommended to campaigns in the past--the Boring Speech of the Month. Editorial writers always complain that campaigns aren't discussing the real issues. It's a hardy perennial, part of our American love of democracy in the abstract but clear disdain for anybody actually running for office. So I suggest that candidates find some poor luncheon organization (they're always looking for speakers, but just to be nice I'd warn them in advance about the substantive talk, and do the Q&A first before you put the audience to sleep) and deliver a solid, substantive, and undoubtedly boring speech on an important policy topic.
The candidate isn't likely to convince anybody with the speech, but it could be billed in campaign press releases as a substantive policy speech--and, more importantly, the campaign would send a copy of the speech to the full membership of the editorial boards of the local newspapers. Nobody at the paper will read the speech, and nothing in such a speech will ultimately make a difference with the newspaper's coverage or endorsements, but if the campaign sends one of these "white papers" every 3-4 weeks during the boring, early stages of the campaign--when nothing is going on but fund-raising anyway--at least the editorialists can't claim that this particular candidate isn't talking about substance. It then becomes the newspaper's failure to cover substance, because it's boring, but it eliminates one of the typical, and apparently mandatory, shots at every candidate.
Are you listening, Craig Columbus? Craig is a candidate for Congress in CD-5, whom I'm helping and who is so like me in my first campaign that it makes my teeth hurt. His stump speech is like mine--I'd better talk about this seventh policy initiative because I just know there's somebody in this room who may still have some doubt after listening merely to the first six! Craig had the best "top rejected campaign slogan" for his campaign: "Vote for me, or I'll come to your house and explain my 192-page economic plan in excruciating detail!" Craig, you should just abuse the Tribune with substance.
I can't remember where I read the Pavarotti line; I tried to search for it but came up empty, so I couldn't give credit but it's a great joke.
CANDIDATES COULD USE A PAPER THAT COVERS THE ELECTION ISSUES
East Valley Tribune, June 9, 2002
Thursday’s Tribune lead editorial griped that the various campaigns for governor just aren’t doing enough to make noise (excuse me, debate the issues). This criticism reminds me of one wag’s jest about Luciano Pavarotti complaining about the size of a restaurant’s portions: He may have a point, but he’s not the guy to make it.
After all, if a newspaper thinks more attention should be paid to election issues, run the darn stories. While other states had vigorous primary campaigns leading up to Election Day last Tuesday, nothing’s happening here because the primary election is still three months away.
Elections aren’t like the baseball standings; a win in a June poll counts much, much less than a win in November. Demanding campaigns spend money three months before the primary, before most voters become remotely interested, is not just foolish, but counterproductive. Money spent now would have little effect, and becomes unavailable for the 30 days before the election, when early voting begins--shortened this year to 20 days.
To have an earlier discussion of issues, move the primary election from September to May. Holding the election before the heat starts, instead of during the dog days of late summer, should increase turnout and start the debate sooner. But it’ll never happen, because a late, low-turnout primary benefits incumbents, who also could be disadvantaged because the Legislature wouldn’t adjourn until nearly Election Day.
So, assuming our late primary date stays, if this newspaper wants more discussion of issues, it can--ahem--just do it. Every political campaign I’ve ever been around complains not about too much coverage, but about not enough coverage, much less in-depth issue coverage.
Each week, The Tribune could give the candidates--not just for governor, but other statewide and local offices, too--prominent space to write 200-300 words discussing a particular issue before the debates and attack ads begin. Print schedules of where people can go to see the various candidates speak (without an admission charge!) during the coming weeks. Publish issue statements available on campaign Web sites, and those sites' addresses. Run stories that don’t discuss either fundraising or polling.
That’s really what Clean Elections has done--eliminated a half-dozen easy, hack stories based on campaign finance reports. The delay while candidates await funding hasn’t slowed the number of press releases or public events (other than fund-raisers, usually closed to the nonpaying public anyway) compared with 1998 or 2000.
It has prevented many campaigns from purchasing early polls--depriving lazy reporters of additional easy “horse race” stories. Sheesh, without fundraising and without polls, there are only issues left, and apparently nobody wants to write about that.
I do predict that serious, issue-laden stuff will be among the least-read parts of the paper, at least until closer to Election Day. This paper’s market research is undoubtedly similar to national survey and focus-group data showing that while people may say that want more serious and substantive political coverage, they don’t actually read it until just before the election--and that date keeps getting later each cycle.
But it’s rank hypocrisy to attack campaigns for not firing before they see the whites of the voters’ eyes when this newspaper could be, and should be, asking questions, soliciting statements, and printing candidate statements about issues this paper wants discussed, as well as statements on the issues a campaign wants to discuss--and, just maybe, what issues a candidate wants the opposition to address.
Don’t blame the campaigns. Every candidate would jump at the chance to grab a fair forum, where ideas different from The Tribune’s official policy could be discussed without slanting or snide comments. If there’s a problem, this newspaper has the power to fix it. Today.
