Debate Dynamics: The Marketing Of Democracy

It is over, isn’t it?

Apparently we’ve all survived another cycle of campaign waterboarding -cheap-shot, political attack ads that demonize opponents and insult voters. And don’t forget direct mail detritus and the loop of interrupting, pre-recorded “robo calls” that make telemarketers sound sincere. Well, almost.

But now the people have taken a collective shower and spoken. Or at least the minority that weren’t too lazy or indifferent or clueless or disgusted to vote have done so.

That voters in this country are more renown for tuning out than turning out is an American irony and hypocrisy, given the United States’ efforts to bring democracy to other places – notably the kind with warlords and religious clans.

So, in addition to bringing back serious civics courses in our schools and instituting meaningful campaign-finance overhaul, what else can be done to foment more interest in important elections? Shy, that is, of political parody from Barbra Streisand.

Arguably, more than good intentions. That’s the purview of editorial pages, the League of Women Voters, community television and PBS.

Since we are a media immersed, celebrity-driven culture, that means going pragmatic. As in infotainment journalism. Cable TV pundits and talk radio partisans.

Enter Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s “Hardball” fame, who moderated last week’s gubernatorial debate on WFLA-Channel 8 among Charlie Crist, Jim Davis and Max Linn. Besides a reputation for an in-your-face inquiry style, Matthews also brought the prospect of higher visibility. Indeed, the debate drew more viewers than that 7-8:00 p.m time slot normally gets with “Entertainment Tonight” and “Extra.” Moreover, it doubled the audience in the Tampa market for the first debate, which was televised on PBS affiliates.

That obviously wasn’t upside enough for everyone. Not when politics is involved. Matthews is not from here; his buzz-saw style grates on some; he looks like he’d be more comfortable exchanging zingers from a bar stool; and he’s not, in his heart of hearts, ideologically bipartisan. Even if no one else is either.

Granted, the Peace Corps alum and former Tip O’Neill aide and Jimmy Carter speechwriter tilts to the left, but he’s no Al Franken or Michael Moore. He’s not the liberal counterpart to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly. Sort of a gregarious, smart-alecky Tim Russert. He’s down on the war in Iraq, but so are a lot of folks. He’s also down on political correctness run amok. He also liked George Bush – in 2000.

His aggressive manner can make for good television. But he can be a frontrunner’s political nightmare. After the Crist campaign understandably balked initially at the prospect of Matthews as wild-card moderator, the rules were modified and the more informal, “Hardballesque” discussion format jettisoned. The candidates were granted podiums. The questions and follow-ups were Matthews’.

Were they ever. And they were, frankly, more the issue than style.

Matthews did not use his time – an hour less commercial breaks and mini lectures on debate decorum to Max Linn – wisely. The critical statewide issues are taxes, insurance and education. Then add growth management, transportation, oil drilling, economic diversification and illegal immigrants. There’s your future-of-Florida debate.Philosophical underpinnings relating to Terry Schiavo and gay marriage are hardly irrelevant, just less pertinent — and more likely to result in political theater.

Right out of the blocks came a question about Iraq. If nothing else, it put Crist immediately on the defensive for what was – despite Floridians’ service and fatalities – a foreign policy question. It opened up the hyper-critical, “stay the course” floodgates for Davis.

Immediately following was one on civil unions and then a gotcha query about what kind of “conservative” and “liberal” Crist and Davis, respectively, were. Each, to his credit, deftly dodged a narrow labeling. Clearly these were questions more geared to a national “Hardball” audience than Floridians trying to assess gubernatorial bona fides. Later came questions on the election of 2000, Mark Foley and Schiavo. And trite requests to grade Gov. Jeb Bush and President George Bush. A Marion Barry reference directed at Crist was uncalled for.

Sure, there were badgering, “show me the money” questions when it came to fixing the property-insurance and property-tax crises, but nothing about preparing Floridians to compete more effectively in the global economy – given this state’s reputation as a bottom-dweller on standardized-test scores. The FCAT was referenced — typically by Davis — but as part of a “bridge” answer to a different question.

As to style, Matthews’ manner wasn’t anything that a candidate for the highest office in the state should not have been able to handle. Call it a mild mettle detector. It helps to be quick on your rhetorical feet. And you need to handle hectoring with specifics – whether it’s about statewide funding sources, a “paper trail” or where murder fits in the context of (otherwise) declining crime statistics.

There’s a place for Chris Matthews in important debates with national implications, because there’s a place for a format that doesn’t give politicians carte blanche to tap dance around tough questions and constantly “bridge” to their talking points and slam lines. But last week there was also a responsibility for Matthews to have prepared more with Floridians in mind than a national “Hardball” audience craving their political-entertainment fix.

Debate As Circus Maximus

Thanks to a U.S. district judge, brash third party (Reform) gubernatorial candidate Max Linn was allowed into the debate at the literal last minute. Just in time to blindside Crist, Davis and Matthews and change the dynamic – largely to the detriment of Crist and the delight of Eugene Ionesco fans.

The court ruling was based on a recent poll that showed Linn, whose previous polling had maxed out at about 1.0 per cent, at 8.9 per cent. The threshold was 7.0 per cent.

A campaign handler, in lamely explaining the surprise legal turnaround to the media prior to the debate, was notably short on key details – such as who had paid for the poll. It mattered because it was supposed to be an “independent” poll. It was also supposed to be of “likely” voters. But who’s to say last-call customers at Treasure Island beach bars shouldn’t count?

Breezeway Sausage And The Media

The ground rules provided for a post-debate candidate availability in the breezeway between the Tampa Tribune and WFLA-TV 8 buildings. Such ritualistic gatherings – including significant handlers and prominent partisans – have their own bizarre dynamic: another example of the sausage syndrome. Some things you just don’t want to see in process. Just the final product: In this case, the requisite debate-reaction spin quotes integrated into tomorrow morning’s newspaper or tonight’s film at 11.

First out was Linn, an astute move. A concentric media circle about five deep raucously engulfed him. He had about three exclusive minutes to rail on about encroaching socialism, third party viability and the donation of the salary he won’t get when he’s not elected governor.

Then massive defections and dispersal brought on by the appearance of former Senator and Governor Bob (“Linn made for a more combative atmosphere”) Graham, Gov. Jeb (“

A Matthews’ Sampler

*Early in the debate, moderator Chris Matthews observed that the Florida gubernatorial race was one of the “cleanest” he had seen. Of course, he has arguably seen entirely too much of senatorial races in Tennessee, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

*On getting out of the office and getting involved in cherry-picked races with national import: “I’d do this for free. I love it.”

*On Max Linn’s late entry: “It felt like one of those last-second-calls-from-the-governor’s-office deals, you know, commuting a sentence or something. It certainly added an interesting element. It had to hurt the Republican candidate more.”

*So who won? “Sorry, I don’t get into that.”

Cuban U.N. Vote

Here we go again.

At a time when the U.S. can ill afford to look any more unilateralist and belligerent to much of the world, up comes another United Nations vote on Cuba.

This week Cuba presents its 14th annual resolution to the U.N. General Assembly against the 44-year-old economic embargo imposed upon it by the United States. Complete with a damages ($86 billion) claim.

Of course, the U.N. is flawed. On a good day. Rogue states can sit on the Security Council. Oil-For-Food turns into graft-for-all. Etc. But it’s the only such world forum we have, and we’ve never needed allies — or just non-adversaries — and favorable worldwide public opinion more than now. It’s integral to our national security goals.

But an embargo that had Cold War merit in 1962 has real world counter-productivity in 2006. It’s not just unfair to Cubans and American business, but it makes it easier for others to self-servingly portray America as the hegemon from hell – and not the country attacked on Sept. 11, 2001.

Last year the vote to lift the embargo was 182 to 4 with one abstention. Voting with the US: Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands. Micronesia abstained.

Don’t look for any significant change — unless this is the year we lose Palau.

School Newspaper Case: A Teachable Moment

Talk about a teachable moment.

Over at Hillsborough High School, the principal stepped in to censor a story in the school’s newspaper. It had to do with achievement gaps on the FCAT among white, black and Hispanic students.

According to Hillsborough Principal William Orr, the content – a story and a chart — was inappropriate even though it was based on familiar enough data the federal government routinely publicizes under the No Child Left Behind Act. Orr felt that running the story wasn’t worth the possible impact on those students negatively characterized by the story and chart.

“If it’s something that has a potential to hurt students’ self-esteem, then I have an obligation not to let that happen,” explained Orr. “I don’t think it’s the job of the school newspaper to embarrass the students.”

There are several issues in play here.

First, the principal is the de facto publisher of a newspaper written by student journalists. (Since professional journalists have been known to screw up royally, the ultimate in adult supervision over teen scribe wannabes is an exercise in both prudence and common sense.)

The principal, not unlike real-world publishers, is responsible for what he signs off on. That can’t be delegated to a faculty adviser. There may be fact, libel or taste issues. There are inherently gray areas when it comes to appropriateness. The principal has the authority – and, indeed, the obligation – to make the call that is in the best interests of his institution. The Supreme Court has formally agreed.

Second, student self-esteem is not irrelevant. To not be sensitive to those in their impressionable years is to be ignorant of the maturation process and life in the peer-pressure lane. Having said that, however, self-esteem is not its own disembodied end; it’s a by-product of accomplishment – even a modest one such as grade-level reading and math. Arguably, feel-good curricula are part of the accountability problem in American education.

Third, of course it’s not “the job of the school newspaper to embarrass students.” But it is the school newspaper’s raison d’etre to be relevant – in general to the student body and specifically to the student journalists. These are not incompatible concepts.

But do keep in mind that we’re not talking about your parents’ school newspapers here. Today’s budding journalists are bombarded and immersed in media. The better ones are pretty savvy and no less idealistic than their predecessors. They are not satisfied with cafeteria surveys, boosterism stories, coach profiles, concert updates and sanitized Q&A’s with administrators. And they will push the envelope, because, well, that’s what teenagers do – let alone teens with ink by the barrel at their disposal.

It’s up to the adults in charge to channel student-journalists’ legitimate, real world concerns about drug use, bullying, birth control and FCAT obsession. Sure, it will involve the word “no” and censorship, but it also entails taking on important, albeit controversial, stories – and treating them responsibly.

One such is the appalling achievement gaps between white and minority students that still persist. It’s hardly unique to Hillsborough High. It remains an ongoing national disgrace more than half a century after Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Frankly, it’s embarrassing for the entire country.

And if there’s any place where this subject should be part of the conversation it’s in the citadels of failure themselves. It’s the elephant-in-the-drawing room syndrome. Let’s just pretend that it’s not there. Or worse yet, let’s just accept that this is the way it is, a racial reality not unlike the composition of the basketball team.

It’s defeatist, insulting and, frankly, racist to not run a story this germane for fear of self-esteem fallout. Unless this is a story on eugenics, it needs to run and hopefully provoke a breach in the status quo .

The question never should have been: Do we censor this or not? It should have been: How good can we make this? As in: What kind of a black-white-Hispanic package – with salient side bars and pertinent profiles — do we want? What community resources should we avail ourselves of? How is Hillsborough High, whose enrollment is about 70 per cent minority, a microcosm of a seemingly intractable, self-perpetuating societal scandal?

And to cut to the scholastic chase, is academic achievement among some minorities still seen as “acting white?” If so, that self-inflicted heresy needs to be on public display for all of its counterproductive perversion.

And, sure, this approach won’t please everyone. That’s another journalistic lesson.

A Last Hurrah?

Among those taken aback by the recent public speculation about former Mayor Dick Greco making a political comeback was – Dick Greco.

Greco, who has been elected four times (1967, ’71, ’95, ’99) as mayor of Tampa, dismisses most of the talk as predictable “political season” palaver.

“It’s not at all abnormal for people to talk to me about running,” says Greco. “And it was a thrill when I came back and did it again (in 1995) after 21 years. “But I haven’t sat down with anybody. I’m not being coy, but I would have to talk seriously with my wife, kids, best friends. And I haven’t. In fact, my son called me after those newspaper stories came out and said, ‘What are you doing?’

“As I said, this is the political season and it’s not unusual for people to ask.”

But if the right people – say, serious business interests still on the lookout for an alternative to Pam Iorio – were to do the formal asking, how would he answer?

“I’d have to honestly search my soul,” responds Greco, sounding not unlike a man who misses the mayoral limelight — and appreciates the flattery of the buzz.

Greco’s reputation was built on personal charisma, a hands-off managerial style that was heavily reliant on a coterie of long-time loyalists, and an uber salesman’s instinct for cutting the big deal. Even his cronyism critics will concede a can-do legacy.

But it’s not the same City Hall he left in 2003. The culture has changed and key operatives from the Greco administration are no longer there. And Greco has never been 73 years old before. And the incumbent is popular.

Greco’s Tampa legacy includes a perfect elective record: one city council and four mayoral races. Soon to be added: a bronze Greco statue. A fund-raising campaign is now underway. Is this the time for a last hurrah?

“Dick Greco is the best known politician in Tampa,” points out John Belohlavek, a USF history professor and political analyst. “He’s seen as a great booster for Tampa. His reputation is for doing the big stuff. He has lots of friends, especially in the business community, and his supporters would give him enough money.

“But would he want to go through the day-to-day of being mayor in his 70’s?” wonders Belohlavek. “And don’t forget he wouldn’t have that built-in (personnel) structure that enabled him to be Dick Greco.

“The bottom line,” underscores Belohlavek, “is why jeopardize the legacy? Will he run? Probably not. Could he win? I don’t think so.”

But should Greco confound the skeptics and make another mayoral run in early ’07, he won’t need some ad agency to think up a snappy campaign slogan. Courtesy of an acquaintance, he already has one: “Gimme Five.”

Miami’s Swagger Bowl: Self-Fulfilling Disgrace

A month ago this column bemoaned the fact that many members of the media had pointed to a loss of “swagger” as a reason why the University of Miami football team was not winning as before. More to the point, there was considerable sentiment in favor of UM regaining that very dubious quality. As if a strutting, obnoxious, insolent air was a reasonable enough price to pay to get good again. As if “swagger” meant confident.

Umbrage was even taken by some to the quote that “watching Miami with swagger was like looking at looters.” At least I didn’t yield to the temptation to apologize to looters.

Now fast forward a fortnight from then – to that notorious UM-Florida International University football game that devolved into a helmet-swinging, sucker-punching, foot-stomping brawl. Before the melee broke out, the “Swagger Bowl” had been punctuated by the usual unsportsmanlike antics – crude “trash talking” and boorish gestures intended to show-off for fans and show-up the opposition. It kept ratcheting – and eventually erupted.

Because of all the exposure and notoriety, there was pressure to do something dramatic and, indeed, collectively there were 29 player suspensions, two dismissals — and one TV-analyst firing. Former Miami receiver Lamar Thomas lost his commentator job when he suggested that the teams meet afterward to finish the fight. But the player penalties should be seen for what they are – quick fixes to appease the outraged and mitigate embarrassing publicity. In reality, only ugly symptoms were addressed.

“There is no place in higher education for the type of conduct exhibited,” grossly understated Wright Water, commissioner of the (FIU-affiliated) Sun Belt Conference.

A better way of putting it would have been: “Higher education and competitive intercollegiate athletics are not incompatible, but we can no longer prostitute ourselves for the sake of big time, money-making basketball and football programs. And for those who think the status quo is beyond repair, well, just watch as we stuff that genie of Hessian jocks back into the bottle of legitimate university priorities.”

That quote, of course, could never come from a commissioner of an athletic conference, unless that person wanted to be content with presiding over a bunch of non-revenue sports played by real student-athletes. There’s no academic artifice, thuggish behavior or recruiting scandals associated with cross country.

A meaningful place to start, arguably, is with university presidents, many of whom are selected, quite candidly, for their fund-raising skills. But filling a stadium or an arena is not the same as outfitting laboratories or building classrooms.

At some point UM President Donna Shalala (as well as her FIU counterpart Modesto Maidique) has to step up and, in effect, say: “We are first and foremost a university. Scholarship should refer more to academic pursuits than pro-prepping internships. We are about learning – not yearning to get to a BCS bowl game.

“And, yes, we are also a community, and to quote the late Coach Bear Bryant, ‘It’s tough to rally around the math department.’ We agree. But having said that, we need to better examine exactly who we are bringing in to ‘represent’ us in athletics and what, if any, standards we are holding them to.”

Instead, she said: “This university will be firm and punish people who do bad things. But we will not throw any student under the bus for instant restoration of our image or our reputation. I will not hang them in a public square. I will not eliminate their participation at the university. I will not take away their scholarships.”

Standards at issue

Obviously Shalala had more help on her spin management than Sen. George Allen did with “macaca.” But it’s obvious she was deflecting attention from core causes and reminding outsiders she wasn’t about to do the merely expedient for image “restoration,” nor was she about to abandon those who had simply done “bad things.” The “hanging in a public square” metaphor was vintage, liberal campus-speak – given that the players involved are black.

Shalala addressed an incident, however repellent, but not an endemic, shameless, hypocritical condition, one that has existed since Miami made its Faustian deal for better players in the 1970s. (It has won five national championships after coming close to folding the program when the Dolphins came to town.) She still doesn’t get it – or want to acknowledge (getting it) in a politically correct, college-sports universe.

And she’s not alone, of course.

But here’s what needs to be addressed. Too many schools with big time athletic programs (read: football and basketball) – with big time expectations, budgets and alumni pressure – are overly reliant on oxymoronic student-athletes. It’s not exactly stop-the-presses news. Miami isn’t unique, just uniquely notorious for its gangsta reputation.

University administrators will tell you that they have flexible admission criteria for all kinds of uniquely talented prospects. They’d love for you to equate the All State wide out (with 4.3 40-yard speed, rap sheet history, awful SATs and a friendly-teacher-skewed GPA) with the budding violinist learning English as a second language.

Often, a majority of these high-profile-sport student-athletes are poor, inner city and black – and academic allowances are made for disadvantaged backgrounds and societal passes handed out for street-culture mores at odds with quaint concepts such as sportsmanship. The process of compromised standards is further muddied by the legitimate, ongoing issue of pro-active, minority recruiting and the political axe that is affirmative action advocacy.

It’s up to college presidents to say enough of the sham. This isn’t “hire” education. There’s no disgrace in a high school athlete, who’s probably been lionized and enabled by coaches and teachers since junior high, not being ready for prime time as a student-student. That’s what community colleges, remediation courses and semi-pro leagues are for.

But somebody has to say enough of the double standards and enough of the swagger-culture resignation – let alone encouragement. Commissioners, athletic directors and coaches won’t. Their jobs are sports – and winning.

That’s why it’s the province of the presidents. But you don’t start by waiting for a disgusting incident and then deciding who might have to be thrown under the team bus. You start by reiterating and re-enforcing what a university is and who actually belongs in one. You acknowledge the difference between a half back and a harpist.

Miami is not the only institution of higher education that has to de-swagger itself. Would that it were.

Hardballing The Debate Issue

Normally I wouldn’t side with the equivocating politician on the subject of campaign debates. But when it comes to next Monday’s (Oct. 30) gubernatorial debate between Charlie Crist and Jim Davis (seen locally on Channel 8 at 7 p.m.), Crist was right to have held out for a more appropriate forum.

The debate, which will be moderated by Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” was originally to be styled after Matthew’s show, a traditional give-and-take interview format with all participants at the same table.

The problem with that is that it pretty much remains personality-driven “Hardball.” Actually, that’s a show I like and do watch most nights. Although I sometimes wince when Matthews interrupts too much, on balance I find that he asks the sort of questions viewers at home would want asked. He can be provocative and funny, and it can make for good television.

But this is the Florida gubernatorial debate, not the Chris Matthews’ show. The most important dynamic is the one between the two candidates. The focus belongs on them. Matthews can facilitate that.

He will ask good, tough questions, and it’s his call as to when opposing candidate rebuttals will be allowed. At his discretion, Matthews will also be allowed follow-up questions.

That could be the great equalizer.

Tampa Bay’s Foxy Look

It certainly wasn’t a coup along the lines of a big convention or prominent sports event, but the recent 10th anniversary drop-in by roving Fox News Channel anchor Shephard Smith was the sort of exposure chambers of commerce – and city halls — die for.

In front of the magnificent backdrop that is the Don CeSar Beach Resort and Spa in St. Pete Beach, Smith did his 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. newscasts last Tuesday. That meant countless cut-away shots of the facility and sunset ambience around commercial breaks. He sprinkled in locals such as WTVT, Channel 13 meteorologist Paul Dellegatto and Hillsborough County prosecutor Pam Biondi.

There was also a mini infomercial on Tampa teased with references to “Tampa’s time” and its “downtown revitalization.” Allusions were made to its growing (eighth largest nationally) school system, “recent” Stanley Cup and Super Bowl winners and a “crime rate falling faster (30 percent over three years) than any other Florida city.”

Mayor Iorio was interviewed in front of city hall and waxed Pamglossian about Tampa, a city that was “youthful, vibrant and a place for entrepreneurs and a new breed of retirees. A city to watch for the future.”

Sounded fair and balanced to us.