Message Obscured

On Wednesday, Democratic Strategist and DNC adviser Hilary Rosen set off an uproar with a comment about Mitt Romney's wife Anne. In an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN, talking about the GOP's recent issues with women voters, Rosen was quoted as saying, "Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life.” This prompted Anne Romney herself to dive onto Twitter to respond, “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work." This was followed by the automatic and predictable avalanche of tweets, comments and press releases, with conservatives using the gaff to claim Democrats don't respect Mothers and liberals falling all over each other in an attempt to distance themselves from Rosen.

There is no doubt that the sentence, taken in isolation, came off as insulting to stay at home moms, but let's just pause for a moment and take a deep, cleansing breath. Before we pile on, perhaps it would be prudent to review the entire relevant section of that interview. Rosen was speaking about Mitt Romney and what she sees as his disconnect with women:

"What you have is, Mitt Romney running around the country saying, “Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues. And when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing."


Guess what: his wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kind of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future."

There are still some questionable wording choices, but taken in context I think her point comes across clearly. This is very much a case of the message being obscured by the wording. Yes, it came off as rather insulting, but the substance was entirely valid. Rosen was speaking in direct response to some of Romney's recent comments, such as this: "My wife has the occasion, as you know, to campaign on her own and also with me, and she reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy." Ruth Marcus, at the Washington Post put it well in an online article on Tuesday when she commented on this quote, "Note to candidate: Women aren’t a foreign country. You don’t need an interpreter to talk to them. Even if you’re not fluent in their language, they might appreciate if you gave it a try." Rosen was obviously following a similar path with her comments. The problem was that she was sloppy in how she put it and should have been more careful in choosing her words. After all, she does this for a living. But we shouldn't let that obscure the valid argument that she was making. And, make no mistake, it is valid.

Now I have nothing but respect for any parent, not to mention one who raises five kids, but this hardly makes her the avatar for the America woman!  It's not easy to forget that while Anne may have had to deal with a lot of the same parenting issues as average Americans, that was about the only thing she has in common with them.  In March, during a Fox News interview, Anne said, “We can be poor in spirit, and I don’t even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing, it can be here today and gone tomorrow.” In fact it is "an interesting thing" since Mitt Romney's net worth is estimated to be in the $200 million range. That's wealthy by anyone's yard stick! To put that kind of number into some context, Romney makes more in a day than the average American makes all year. This isn't to say that being rich, even this level of rich, is wrong or something to be ashamed of, but both Romneys should at least be aware how much distance this puts between them and at least 99.5% of American voters. Romney's comments, making his wife his prime source on women's issues, just seems to show once again how removed from everyone else’s reality this family is.

Look, the Romneys are very wealthy and there is nothing wrong with that. But Mitt Romney is running for President of the entire United States, not just the top tier. And while nobody should expect him to have first hand experience with living paycheck to paycheck, we should expect him to make an effort to pay some attention. Yet just about every time he opens his mouth, out comes another line that illustrates a man who seemingly has no awareness of what most of the country is actually going through. Comments holding Anne Romney up as his window into the souls of women is more of the same. It shows once again a complete disconnect from the life most American's live. Rosen's error was in how she phrased it, but her underlying sentiment was dead on.  Anne Romney is about as in touch with the concerns of a single Mom in Arkansas as Mitt Romney is with an unemployed construction worker in Baton Rouge. And what's worse, they don't really seem to care.

The Tough Questions

As you may have noticed from previous posts, I've been very frustrated politically over the last year. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the media is letting us down. Not that it doesn't give ample air time to various viewpoints, as it surely does. But it seems to me that with only a few exceptions, much of the time pundits and political figures spend in the media spotlight is merely  to spout thinly veiled propaganda. I don't include formal speeches and news conferences, as those are clearly the showplaces of the most naked of propaganda. I'm speaking of talk shows and interviews.

I've watched a good deal of TV news and opinion shows, or snippets thereof and it infuriates me to watch a guest spout off a long string of what they claim are indisputable facts and yet the interviewer will simply nod or offer up an opportunity for the guest to elaborate without ever challenging any of their claims. I've watched Senators confidently assert 'facts' that are demonstrably false. I don't mean that I disagree with their interpretation of policy. I mean straight up, no gray area, easily refuted lies. And this happens all the time. This isn't journalism, it's Public Relations. For example, I've watched Republican Senators and Representatives smile confidently and dismiss the various health reform bills as an unacceptable 'Government takeover of healthcare" and I keep waiting for the host to lean in and politely interrupt. I want to hear them ask exactly what part of the bill constitutes a takeover of healthcare? But they never do! This is where the media can make a difference. It's where they can help cut through the misinformation and the far too numerous lies. But far too often the moderators are little more than game show hosts.  So guests are allowed to come on and make blatantly misleading statements or lies with the tacit approval of the host. What's the point of this? It's just a media provided lectern from which guests can proclaim the sky is red to millions of people without contradiction. I don't expect the hosts to fact check everything on the fly, but when these whoppers come rolling out I'd like to see something!

Also, we've entered into an era where many media outlets have turned to an echo chamber style of journalism. You'll have a host who will interview almost exclusively politicians and pundits of the same political bent as they are. While you will occasionally get some decent analysis out of these, you rarely get anything particularly insightful. The guests are generally there just to provide backing for the host's views. What would make these much more interesting would be to see more liberals on Fox and more conservatives on MSNBC, for example. Of course, I have no idea if the main reason for much of this is due to guests refusing to come on a show that might actually press them on issues. This is certainly a likely reason, as I've heard Rachel Maddow note on several occasions that they have tried to get this person or that to come on the show but they've never accepted. In other words, they refused so they wouldn't have to answer a bunch of inconvenient questions.

Now you can say that some of this comes from the guest's demands for a friendly platform, therefore what can be done? Well, if the majority of news and opinion shows stopped providing unhindered propaganda time for guests, that would be a start. If these people stopped having this plethora of outlets vying to give out free air time, they would have to deal with a more adversarial format if they wanted to get their views broadcast. I bet if this was the norm rather than the exception, there would be a bit more truth mixed in with the self serving blather. This could only be a good thing.