On Storylines and Flip Flops

Now that most of the outrage is dying down over the New Yorker's cover, we can set our sights again on foreign polict and the nature of flip flopping.

For those paying close attention, in the middle of a speech calling Obama naive and defeatist in his approach to our various wars in the world, McCain actually adopted a large part of Obama's plan, namely that we should increase our troop presence in Afghanistan if we want to win there. Of course, McCain's comments don't come until the 10th paragraph of the story I just linked and even then there's no analysis to point out that Obama has been making essentially the same point (in different terms) for about a year now.

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has been doing a good job covering how McCain is assuming Obama's position and how the mainstream press isn't calling him on it! This is something we've been seeing a lot. Obama has been lurching to the center while McCain claims to be taking the same course he already has, even as his positions on issues careen all over the political map. In the above link you Josh points out that he changed his position on Afghanistan the same day. So what gives? Why is Obama flip flopping and McCain not?

I think the answer is pretty simple and fits into the theory of the Tom Cruise Effect. Namely, McCain has a reputation as the Straight Talk Express with lots of policy experience. He's the expert and it doesn't fit into his story line to have him flopping all over the place. Meanwhile, Obama is the fresh-faced newcomer with rhetoric that made it difficult to understand exactly what his positions were during the primary. (You have to laugh at the irony that after months of coverage in the press about how Obama wasn't really laying out any policy proposals he's now being accused of switching positions on proposals he apparently didn't lay out the first time.) So the new guy flops while the Straight Talk Express keeps on going straight - never mind that lately the Straight Talk has been just as crooked as the flopper.

The fact is that the press simply doesn't do a good job covering the substance of presidential campaigns. There's lots of focus on minor gaffes and controversies but little analysis on what's actually being said and what it will actually mean for the country. The reporters get their storylines and stick with them, regardless of the facts that run to the contrary. It's not a hopeless situaton, but it is disappointing to run into it over and over again.

Feeding the Beast

A recent New Yorker article ostensibly focused on whether or not John McCain could reinvent Republicanism also touched on some interesting points regarding the media strategies of the different campaigns. The profile of McCain opens with him engaged in long, frank conversations with members of the press aboard his campaign bus. This is contrasted with the "overly managed" campaigns of Obama and Clinton in which the media is held at arm's length and only fed pre-chewed sound bites and talking points. Obama's campaign in particular is singled out for its similarity to the Bush White House in terms of message discipline and rooting out leaks with "frightening intensity."

If there's anything that the Bush media team has taught us, it is that hyper-fanaticism in message discipline does not work as a long-term media strategy. It can certainly be effective in the short term (and a campaign may be just the right amount of time), but over the course of a presidency the magic is bound to wear off.

To use a slightly less-than-flattering metaphor, the modern media is a thousand-headed beast with a voracious appetite that has to be fed 24 hours a day (if not more) in order to be kept happy. Faced with this reality, presidents must choose what they are going to do in order to keep the beast calm and well-fed. After all, even thousand-headed beasts will usually refrain from biting the hand that feeds it. What the Reagan White House did so well and the Bush White House tried to take even further was placing such an extreme level of discipline on those who talk to the press that no matter how hungry the beast gets, there is still only one story to cover: the story the White House wants covered. In theory this makes an awful lot of sense. Limit access to the president, everyone else is saying the exact same thing, and there's only one game in town.

Except that's where the problem arises. While there's only one White House and one president, there will never only be one game in a town like Washington. If the press beast isn't being fed at the White House it will lumber elsewhere at which point the White House loses control over the story. Suddenly, the White House isn't dictating the agenda anymore and isn't in front of the news cycle. This is what we've seen over the course of the Bush years.

At first, the press was happy to take what was offered and coverage was generally good. As time passed, the beast began to grow restless. The Bush communications team didn't recognize their changing situation (no surprise there) and continued to insist on one line a day, one story, one morsel. When the press insisted on more and they didn't get it from the White House, they turned elsewhere. Coverage has only gotten steadily worse from there.

While an Obama team (or Clinton team) might be able to improve upon the Bush structure, the system itself is fundamentally flawed because it is impossible to satiate the beast entirely with pre-selected soundbites.

So what is a president to do?

Interestingly, John McCain might already be on the right track. (He is also following in the footsteps of Franklin Roosevelt more than he would like to admit as he tries to solidify his standing among conseratives.) What Roosevelt, and now McCain, did so effectively was coopt the press by giving them a steady stream of information that they wanted, but with his spin on it. FDR engaged in long conversations with members of the press answering virtually whatever questions they asked. In doing so, he was able to give them the White House version of facts first, before they had to go out and learn about it on the street. By getting the first word in, FDR was able to shape the coverage he received. By engaging in frank discussions of the issues the press wanted covered, he was able to maintain his advantage of getting the first word in.

McCain seems like he is doing that now and it should serve him well. Hopefully the Democrats figure it out too. After all, even a thousand-headed beast with a voracious 24-hour appetite will think twice before biting the hand that feeds it.