The New York Times has a priceless editorial today. Using Michael Bloomberg as a springboard, they let loose with ripsotes like these:
For a couple of days, at least, he changed the subject from who has raised the most money and focused attention on some of the nonwedge but really important issues that he and a few other mayors and governors have been trying to push to the front of the national agenda…
Mr. Bloomberg was right when he said Americans care “about who’s going to pay their Social Security; they care about who’s going to pay their medical care; they care about immigration, about our reputation overseas.†And, unlike politicians in both parties, he talked about America’s out-of-control gun problem.
I have news for you. The “subject” is not some vague force of nature that just happens. It’s an artifact of how the mass media spends time and inches. And guess what New York Times, that’s you. You’re writing the articles, they don’t just magically appear. You’re the one publishing stupid articles about every triviality there is instead of writing about positions and policy. You’re the reason why our electorate is so incredibly uninformed about anything important. The candidates do talk about medical care, they do talk about Social Security, they do talk about our reputation overseas. You just don’t report it. Look in the mirror.
A couple of opinions (for what they’re worth) on Bloomberg:
1. On Bloomberg’s potential candidacy and why it’s big news. It’s certainly big in these parts (NJ/NY area) for too many reasons to mention, although some have been mentioned in the Oren/Muttrox conversation: can a super-rich guy buy the presidency (like Corzine bought a Senator job in NJ)?; a potentially legitimate 3rd party candidate for the first time since ’92; tapping into the general dissatisfaction that many people have with the current list of candidates to choose from; the great potential for fireworks between Bloomberg and Giuliani; and just general intrigue — more potential interesting election scenarios.
2. On Bloomberg running to capture a couple of states and trying to throw the election to the House. I don’t believe it. Hard to imagine a shrewd businessman like Bloomberg investing a cool half a bil on that. If he goes in, he’s in to win. But I agree it made for interesting reading.
3. Bloomberg described as not an egomaniac? Quoting a recent Newsweek article, his company is called Bloomberg L.P., his financial news service is Bloomberg News, and his memoir is titled “Bloomberg on Bloomberg.” Sounds like there’s at least a bit of ego there…
O, you’re drifting from the point. The NYT can’t pretend it’s some dispassionate observer that’s objectively reporting what “the subject” is. The subject is whatever is reported on, and the NYT is one of the primary sources of that reporting. Yes, they have fluff, but they are not percieved as fluffy, they are perceived within and without the media as the standard setter.
Bloomberg: Agreed it makes some sense. But it made just as much sense for Perot and Forbes, even Nader. None of them followed the strategy. There is no evidence at all that he is planning anything like this. None. There’s even an explicit denial in the article. But it’s not presented as here’s an interesting theoretical idea, like could Bill Clinton be Hillary’s VP candidate and get back into office that way, it is presented as a reasonable supposition when it’s anything but.
Glad you’re on break O!
1) You can’t believe what polls say that people want- in their minds, they might think they want stories about issues, but I bet if you look at what the most popular stories are on the NYT web site, it’s fluff daddy. Also, I think you hold the Times in too high regard– after having a subscription for the last few months, there’s a lot of non-news.
2) I read that article too- really interesting idea. The only reason it makes sense is that Bloomberg is realistic, not an egomaniac (relatively speaking), and there’s no way he thinks he could win outright. Their scenario is the only I’ve heard that explains what he could realistically achieve by running.
O,
1. Of course there’s a balance. But poll after poll shows that’s not what people are interested in, or at least not NYT readers. In addition, the NYT is not just any media, we’re not talking about People, or even George. It’s whole position in the market is the paper of record, the newspaper for the elite thinkers, they hold themselves out as being better than the rest.
2. Bloomberg’s interesting. Very similar to Perot, with better credentials. There is something appealing about a guy running who has so much money and so beholden to no one and obviously just wants to hold office so he can fix some of the crazy shit that he’s seen out of government his whole life. The NYT had an interesting article today. They hypothesized that he could focus all his money to take a couple of battleground states, then he would play tiebreaker in the electoral college, where he could choose which of the other two candidates was anointed. Very interesting, but in another burst of fine journalism there was exactly no evidence that Bloomberg was in the least way heading that way.
Sid, is your nose brown enough. She kicking back click money to you or something?
Equity Private (one of the best blogs anywhere) has a great piece that seems relevant to this post. Her blog should be on your feed reader.
http://equityprivate.typepad.com/ep/2007/06/the_virtues_of_.html
Two thoughts:
1. Of course you’re right that the Times is one of the main suppliers of irrelevant content like how sexy Obama is and how many times Romney has been hunting. But it’s a chicken-or-the-egg situation– do they write it because that’s all most people are interested in, or are we interested because that’s what we’re offered?
2. The more interesting question is why has the mere idea of a Bloomberg candidacy generated this response (rather than the obvious response of how there’s no way a Jewish, short, closeted gay New Yorker could become president)? My guess is that the national political scene is so partisan and polarized that it takes an outsider to get most people to think about policy rather than politics. Also, Bloomberg has generated relatively successful and forward-thinking ideas without being very charismatic, so its easier to focus on his ideas.