The Problem with Political Coverage (I)

OK, it's hard to say that there's one problem with political coverage. There are many, many problems with political coverage. We'll start with this one:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93KD6Q00&show_article=1

The thesis of this bit of analysis from the AP is that Sarah Palin's recent attacks on Barack Obama's associations are "racially-tinged." I reject this line of analysis altogether, for what it's worth, but that's not the point I'm trying to hit.

1. With her criticism, Palin is taking on the running mate's traditional role of attacker, said Rich Galen, a Republican strategist. "There appears to be a newfound sense of confidence in Sarah Palin as a candidate, given her performance the other night," Galen said. "I think that they are comfortable enough with her now that she's got the standing with the electorate to take off after Obama."

2. "It's a giant changing of the subject," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist. "The problem is the messenger. If you want to start throwing fire bombs, you don't send out the fluffy bunny to do it. I think people don't take Sarah Palin seriously."

Rich Galen and Jenny Backus CANNOT deliver analysis of the situation at all. They are delivering talking points, not analysis.

Galen's analysis is based on the following premises:

- Palin is confident.
- Palin did a great job in the debate.
- Palin has gravitas with the electorate.

Backus, on the other hand, bases her analysis on the following premises:

- Palin is a "fluffy bunny."
- No one takes Palin seriously.

Both bits of analysis are based on entirely different premises, but those premises reflect the stated political positions of the analysts! So why do we even use their opinions for copy? They are just part of the two campaigns' distinct attempts to shape the narrative and build support for their candidate of choice.

I think that both analysts, for what it's worth, are quite wrong.

- Palin did not do a "great job" at the debate, and she is still something of an unknown in the electorate.
- Palin's convention speech was the most effective attack on Barack Obama in the entire election cycle; she's not a "fluffy bunny."

These two conclusions, to me, are more fair than the politically-tinged ones of Backus and Galen. Why are "_______ strategists" even allowed to deliver analysis in non-partisan settings? It's not analysis at all. It's just another field for the campaigns to do battle. And whenever possible, the news media should be detached from the campaigns, not entangled with them.

AND: there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with the line of inquiry vis-a-vis William Ayers. Associations matter. Obama is (rightfully) trying to downplay this, but he hasn't given people access to the critical documents needed to "exonerate" himself. William Ayers' priorities, beliefs, and goals are different from those of mainstream Americans. If Obama just worked with him to advance his OWN goals, that's fine--but if Obama sympathized with those goals at any time, he has to defend himself. The media cannot act as a gatekeeper in this spot; the media has to try to break down the gate.