US Presidential Election

[Denis Cavanagh]

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election

[Denis Cavanagh]

The harm is that it puts us in a position of supporting bias, which is a no-no.  This kind of thing really belongs on another type of space, or blog.

I don't think it puts us in a position of supporting bias. Recording what is happening doesn't belong in a blog, and that is exactly what happening in the article I just linked to. It would be much harder to write an article about the primary after the elections.

[Robert_W_King]

My problem isn't with the recording of events that are significant--my problem is with (largely) Richard's (and possibly others') "synthesis" of politics/political views/political statements (essentially anything that amounts to what is said or claimed which would help someone to or not get elected), which in my opinion don't belong in CZ.

[Pat_Palmer]

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election

This is just the thing.  Would you consider moving much of the "presidential election" sections of Clinton and Obama to this article?  I would rather Denis or Richard moved the material, as they seem interested in maintaining the above article.  I would suggest leaving in the candidate articles only a brief statement about the election itself, and a pointer to the article above.

I suggest this because the majority in this discussion seem to believe that it would be helpful to keep the candidate bios straightforward encyclopedic reference type articles.

I'm willing to see what you all make of the above article if we can just keep the candidate articles mostly clear of the pundit quotes and ongoing ennuendo and spin inherent in those statements, as they are promulgated by campaign machines trying to make a sale.

[Zachary Pruckowski]

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election

Again, because of length issues, I want to press for splitting it into articles on the primaries and on the general election.  But if no one else wants to do that, then I'll bow to their wisdom.

[RJensen]

It's a fallacy to think that articles on Obama/Clinton/McCain/Romney etc would be meaningful if we left out their positions, their issues and their rhetoric and instead emphasize the names and ages of their children. CZ would be of minimal value.

CZ is an adult encyclopedia and can handle heated political rhetoric--that is why readers will want to come here.  It's a fallacy to think that rhetoric is meaningless babble ("spin" someone called it). Actually it reflects the society and shapes the future.

I taught history for years at an engineering school (RPI) and indeed the engineers were very uncomfortable with political history. However the dean repeatedly insisted that his engineers had to be able to handle real world rhetoric and so he added to the requirement in humanities and social sciences.

[Robert_W_King]

Again, Richard, we're not Newsweek.  We're not here to promote rhetoric.

[Pat_Palmer]

It's a fallacy to think ...

Richard,

It may be a fallacy, but I think it.  Please don't patronize me about elections or campaigns; I am trained in politics (MGA, Fels Center, Univ of Penn) and have studied this stuff as much as anyone.   I feel that the quotes I've seen you adding to the articles contain "spin" verbiage promulgated by campaigners trying to sell.  I don't think Citizendium is obligated to forward the cause of politicos by repeating VERBATIM their rhetoric here.  So if CZ is going to describe the positions each side takes, I would like to see the CZ language be neutral, with a lot less direct quoting.  Because direct quoting is mainly going to contain ennuendo.

For example, you (or someone) had copied in a quote from the press about Hillary "hammering" Obama.  I heard and read those same reports, and in them, only Hillary "hammered", whereas the other candidates "claimed".  That is a hidden dig.  Political managers deliberately, during elections, use these subtle wording differences as their weapons.  When we quote that stuff verbatim in here, we are helping them deceive people, whereas, we should be helping people instead to think without all the noise of sifting through those ugly digs.

Furthermore, someone had in the first sentence of Obama's article that he was "the leading contender" for president, an exaggeration at a minimum.

I don't mind if authors describe positions, but I suggest describing them in our own words, and also measured, even, fairminded tones instead of the heated rhetoric of news reporting.

I value your expertise in these matters.  Please, value the rest of our opinions as well.  I feel that you're treating us like we're rubes who don't know a manipulation when we see one.

Best regards,

Pat

[Pat_Palmer]

I taught history for years at an engineering school (RPI) and indeed the engineers were very uncomfortable with political history. However the dean repeatedly insisted that his engineers had to be able to handle real world rhetoric and so he added to the requirement in humanities and social sciences.

This is off topic, but the above really made me smile.  I heard a lot of the politicos describing engineers as naive and easily led.  He he.  They apparently don't know the same engineers (and scientists) that I know.

[RJensen]

Engineers are very smart people. But when they're undergraduates they don't appreciate politics or political history--and I say that after teaching few thousand of them over the years. (They REALLY liked military history, on the other hand.)  CZ rules call for bold writing (words like "hammered" -- chosen originally by a highly experienced reported and one I though exactly right).  To cover politics we have to explain what the strengths and weaknesses are of each candidate. That is not bias or partisanship or spin, that is expert analysis.  Granted it takes years of experience to do this --- the typical PhD in history takes about 11 years to complete, and that's after an undergraduate degree in history.

[Pat_Palmer]

I agree that such colorful language (as, say, "hammered") is wonderful in its place, even in encyclopedia articles.  Not in highly sensitive political topics, though.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

There was an interesting article in The Times about such words as "hammered" being used in the US election campaign. [Sorry, I dont have the link]. It noted that the press were using these words in reporting, but when you actually examine the politician' statements being described, they are nothing like the description. In other words, the spin of the reporting is extreme, and rather strange to British journalists.

[Denis Cavanagh]

There was an interesting article in The Times about such words as "hammered" being used in the US election campaign. [Sorry, I dont have the link]. It noted that the press were using these words in reporting, but when you actually examine the politician' statements being described, they are nothing like the description. In other words, the spin of the reporting is extreme, and rather strange to British journalists.

Campbell and Co. were good spinmasters in their day!

[RJensen]

A quick google search of "Clinton hammered Obama" turns up many examples from the most prestigous newspapers in the US, India and UK, including the Times of London. 

sample usage: Times of London: "Clinton again hammered away at the theme of experience. Without mentioning Mr Obama by name, she asked crowds ..." [27 December 2007]

Washington POST: "After Clinton's answer, Obama hammered home his reform message," 
Nagourney (NY Times): "they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does...";
Nagourney (NY Times):  Romney " hammered Huckabee with negative advertisements over the past month"
Broder (Wash Post:) "In 1992... incumbents were hammered"
London Telegram: " She has hammered him so hard on his limited track record"
Australian: "Bill Clinton, hammered home the point in Iowa"
London Guardian: " Clinton hammered home her electability"

and it's not a new coinage, 1996 NY Times: "Mr. Clinton hammered away at his opponent for failing on these counts. And he won."
 
The best style is determined by the best writers in the language and they use "hammered" in a political context all the time.

[Pat_Palmer]

Just because a lot of people do something, doesn't mean I want to do. 

The American press in particular is really something of an embarrassment, isn't it?  If the press is to be held up as the example to follow, we should spend the bulk of our energies reporting on whether candidates are charming or have charisma and debating meaningless "froth" terms such as change and experience, and we should largely ignore candidate positions on the national debt, war, health care, immigration, and so forth.