Please Don't Let Me be Misunderstood

I really try to avoid creating multiple posts in one day, primarily because I'm worried that I won't have enough to write about on other days. However, I just saw this video clip from what appears to be a Republican response to Slate and just had to respond:



Now, I'm no political guru, but what Mark McKinnon says about President Bush not revealing his lighter side to the national media runs counter to everything we've been taught to believe about the press. I'm not talking about the presumed bias against anything Republican here; Fox News and Rush Limbaugh fill that void. No, it is this direct quote from McKinnon:

It’s really hard, and it’s increasingly hard with the proliferation of media, to provide that kind of exposure and transparency that we’d like to. To get kind of behind the curtain and show the human side.

Wait, you're trying to make the claim that the reason why no one ever saw the softer side of Bush 43 is because of the proliferation of media? That there are too many sources from which we voters can get to know a candidate?

I don't think I've ever heard anything more patently false* than that. I know that these political insiders, spin doctors, and apparatchiks have their own agendas any time they open their mouths. Michael J. Fox had a wonderful TV show for a long time based on that one premise. But there should be a line drawn between simple spin or image control and outright falsehoods.

* Well, maybe that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan because they were looking for a warm water port, but that's beside the point.

Case in point: The current (and soon to be former) Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently undergoing impeachment hearings in the Illinois state Senate. He decided to boycott the proceedings, claiming a denial of his due process, and instead is waging the public perception war for his image by making personal appearances on 20/20, Good Morning America, and whatnot. That's his right, and certainly lots of people who have screwed up royally decided to take a similar path. Why admit any wrongdoing, when you can shed a few tears in front of Barbara Walters and get a few sympathetic people on your side? It's as American as apple pie, these days.

However, that doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it. Falsehoods are falsehoods, no matter how they are spun. Getting back to the original comment, doesn't McKinnon think there was a single TV show host who would have loved to bring Bush 43 on the set and present him in a favorable light? His statement is that not a single event like that was possible for the eight years of the Bush administration, and that is impossible to believe. Were the shots of Bush relaxing on his Crawford, TX ranch not enough to humanize the man? What about the stills of Bush riding his mountain bike?

No, the real culprit here is not the fact that too many media choices exist to showcase a candidate's sense of humor. For too long, politics have revolved around the ability to show candidates in more open settings. Think of Bill Clinton appearing on MTV to field the infamous "Boxers or briefs?" question, or of him appearing on The Tonight Show to play the sax for Jay Leno. The real danger is that those fluff pieces can drown out more serious discussions on policy stances or political agendas.

Ask yourself this question: what was the alternative before these media avenues existed? Political machines like Tammany Hall used to pick our candidates for us, didn't they? Behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms, they did. Would we really want to head back to that style of process?

No, the real culprits for not knowing enough about a candidate are those spin meisters like McKinnon himself. As access to the candidates improved with radio and television this past century, those candidates best able to work with the new technologies benefited the most. Think of JFK in the first televised debate with Richard Nixon. Anyone listening to that debate thought Nixon won; those watching on TV had a vastly different impression. Heck, think of those candidates (including Obama) now blogging and using the Internet to spur grassroots organizations and fund-raising machines.

But as access has increased, so has the worry (again, on the part of the spin meisters like McKinnon) that their candidate will say or do something stupid while a camera or like device is recording. The only alternative? To severely restrict access to a candidate and heavily script every appearance, every utterance, to make sure the candidate remains on topic and on message, lest any words that could be used in a negative campaign ad be caught on tape.

The same is true in sports, as well. Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, at one point of their lives, were happy, confident young men who delighted in telling their own story to the press. As they realized the power (and lucrative nature!) of marketing themselves, they clammed up to the point of only saying the most droll of sound bites. It's also why Jordan never took up a side for a politician, using the old line that "Republicans buy shoes, too."

So, the problem is not that there are too many media outlets "...to provide that kind of exposure and transparency that we’d like to." The problem is that the candidates' or President's handlers won't allow him (or her) to speak for him- or herself while on the campaign trail or while in office. Just give credit where credit is due. You can't blame mass media for every ill in society, as tempting as that might be.

World Class Entertainment on the Prairie

When I first told my beautiful bride that I found a new job in Champaign, IL, the first word out of her mouth was, "Where?!" Neither one of us is from Illinois originally, and I'd applied to the open position in Champaign only because the decision makers for the position I really wanted at Scott AFB (also in IL, but much closer to St. Louis) were taking so long to make a hire decision. When we were driving down from Chicago on our house-hunting trip a few weeks later, passing nothing but miles and miles of corn fields, her reaction was, "Where are you taking me?!"

I am very happy to report that we absolutely LOVE living in Champaign-Urbana!! It's home to the University of Illinois' main campus, properly titled the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, or UIUC (the main administration buildings are actually located in Urbana, which is why the smaller of the two cities comes first in the name). We've been here for a little over three years now, and we have so many incredibly neat neighbors and friends, most of whom have some tie to the university. It's a great place to raise children, too.

The other reason why we love living here is that we do get exposure to truly world-class entertainment, thanks to UIUC. Last year, I helped my Rotary club put on a concert by Sherban Lupu on violin and Ian Hobson on piano; both men are professors at UIUC, and both are renowned musicians who travel the globe giving concerts.

Last night, my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to see Nathan Gunn perform live. Gunn, I'm learning, is one of the absolute top Baritones in the world. He has his own Wikipedia page, and there's a one-on-one interview with him at this link. The performance last night was at a smaller venue, and he performed selections from various Broadway shows, Camelot, and The Magic Flute (in German!) with his wife and another world-class opera singer. There's another nice piece on him and his wife from the U of I alumni magazine here.

Left: Here's a beefcake photo for the ladies of Nathan Gunn.

We're just incredibly blessed to have these types of opportunities to experience and enjoy the high arts, living where we do. I remarked last night that we are actually very lucky to catch live performances from these artists here in Champaign simply because they do travel the world so much; many people living here had to watch The Met's opera simulcasts at local movie theaters to see Gunn perform live. My wife and I tend to skew the age demographic younger any time we attend events like this, but that's OK with us.

The only thing that makes us scratch our heads is why other couples from our generation don't also attend these performances. I know that Gunn is not Britney Spears, The Killers, Death Cab for Cutie, or any other music act that might be popular with our friends these days. Still, if you have the opportunity to see a world-class musician perform live without traveling to Chicago, NYC, or Washington, DC, wouldn't you take it?! I should add that I am no opera buff by any means. I don't like the Andrew Lloyd Webber style of music or musicals all the rage on Broadway. But I do appreciate talent in many different forms, and Gunn sings spectacularly well!