I'll Ask Again: Why Does the Post Let Their TV Critic Write About Political Events?

Tom Shales might be the greatest TV critic in the country. For all I know, he might be the greatest TV critic of all time.

But, as he demonstrates over and over again, every time they let him up from the kid's table to write about the big kid stuff, the serious grown-up stuff, he hasn't a clue about politics, political history, political communication, presidential rhetoric, or any of the topics that inform meaningful criticism of presidential performances.

The problem isn't just that someone who normally writes about sit-coms is writing about serious stuff. The problem is that while it might be a clever gimmick to bring him in to apply the techniques one would apply to sit-coms, he attempt to write as if he actually knows what the hell's going on -- when in fact he hasn't a clue. All he's got is snark.

If George W. Bush could sing and dance to "Yankee Doodle Dandy," he probably would have last night, as part of a sentimental patriotic spectacle technically known as the State of the Union address. Bush pulled out all the stops in exploiting the success of the recent election in U.S.-occupied Iraq and had guest stars in the balcony to back him up.

Very droll.

If Shales knew anything at all about presidential rhetoric, he'd know that in fact the State of the Union is without a doubt partly ritualistic. It's high theater.

The entrance of the Supreme Court Justices, who sit in stony neutrality, representatives of the impartiality of the judiciary. The presence of the Joint Chiefs, who also sit still during any mention of domestic politics, representing the poltical neutrality of the military. The entrance of the president's cabinet (one member in the line of sucession always missing), and then finally the introduction and entrance of the president, always accompanied by a delegation composed of members from both parties and both houses, symbolizing that it is their chamber and he is their guest.

Does Shales think Karl Rove cooked all this up?

As for the "special guest stars," as I explained last night, (and as it becomes clear later in the piece Shales is well aware), also not a Bush/Rove innovation, but a long standing tradition going back twenty odd years.

But no detail is too small for Shales' practiced eye:

Maybe it helped that he abandoned his usual powder- or baby-blue tie for a bright red one, a red to match the stripes in the huge flag behind him in the Capitol's House chamber.

Well, I can't say that I make a practice of noticing what color tie anyone is wearing, except that I'm positive that for the speech to the Joint Session of Congress on September 20, 2001, the President was wearing a red tie, just becasue the entire memory is so vivid to me. And I just can't imagine a White House operation that pays as much attention to detail as this one wouldn't worry about the common conception that red shows better on television. But, hey, whatever. Shales is the professional after all.

Television commentators seemed to agree that Bush looked more confident and comfortable than he usually does when in the daunting glare of the national spotlight. Bob Schieffer of CBS News said he thought this "very good speech" was "one of the best-delivered" that he'd ever seen the president give. There is a thin line between confidence and arrogance, but Bush did not appear to cross it, at least in terms of style.

Oh please. How hard is this? President with audience = fine. President with teleprompter and no audience = stiff. After four years they're still trying to figure this out?

Look at this, dropped into the middle of the article with no explanation whatsoever:

Broadcasting history was being made, meanwhile. Before the speech, longtime CBS anchor Dan Rather introduced Schieffer as the network's chief political correspondent and as the "soon-to-be interim anchor of 'The CBS Evening News,' " after USA Today had broken the news that Schieffer will fill in from the time Rather steps down as anchor March 9 until a newly and perhaps radically remodeled newscast is ready for public inspection in summer or fall.

This was probably the last State of the Union speech Rather will anchor. He did not look happy about it. Nor should anybody be happy about it. (My emph.)

Well, I'm sure that's a topic for another column, but that opinion, just dropped in there like that, without even a flying pass at a justification, turns into just more snark, in fact snark on steroids.

This is what I mean by a lack of background producing bad analysis:

Bush was interrupted more than 80 times for applause, sometimes applause that came only from the side of the chamber where the Republicans were congregated, but, as is hardly the custom, he was jeered a few times, too, during his long presentation of plans for "saving" Social Security, which he insists would otherwise need $200 billion by 2027. Bush got a healthy ovation when he said the issue was "more important than partisan politics," but then proceeded to make it a partisan political issue himself, proposing "voluntary personal retirement accounts" to supplement public funds.

Name the last president who wasn't applauded, at least a few times, by only one side of the aisle during the SOTU. And, for Shales information, making something "a partisan political issue" in this context is otherwise known as putting forward and advocating a proposal. Which is what presidents use the SOTU for. Is that more or less partisan than Dems who've already pronounced his idea dead on arrival? It's how each side behaves as the negotiation moves forward that determines how partisan they are, not the fact that they have a proposal that reflects their party's ideology.

On the other hand, surely even Shales knows all this. So if he does, why does he write as if every element of the SOTU were invented last night, by this administration?

Now, you may disagree with the president's position on stem cell research, but how bizarre and stretched is this analogy?

There were other inconsistencies, but network commentators were too jolly -- some of them having had lunch with Bush at the White House earlier in the day -- to mention them. When he spoke of medical research and the controversial matter of using human embryos in the fight against diseases, Bush said one of the key precepts is "that human life is never bought or sold as a commodity." He didn't buy or sell anybody, but Bush used humans as commodities -- props -- in driving home his points last night.

In a tradition begun with great effectiveness by Ronald Reagan, the White House had planted guests in the chamber who were there to symbolize some point the president was trying to make, and the networks were advised in advance when to zoom in for shots of them. One woman, for instance, was identified as a happy Afghan voter and another, later, as a happy Iraqi activist. She was seated next to Laura Bush herself.

The anchors may or may not have been "jolly," but I'm pretty sure that's not the reason they didn't immediately recognize the traditional use of the Skutnick (hey, at least Shales here acknowledges other presidents have used the practice) as inconsistent with his stem cell policy.

But Shales will give no quarter:

Bush also spoke, inevitably, of the valor of U.S. troops fighting in Iraq with no end in sight, or at least announced, and paid tribute to a fallen Marine from Texas, Sgt. Byron Norwood. Then came the most emotional moment of the evening. Janet and William Norwood, the young man's parents, were also seated in the gallery and stood up to tumultuous and prolonged applause. Janet Norwood hugged the Iraqi voter (one finger purple as a symbol of having voted), and they seemed to get briefly entangled in each other's jewelry as the applause went on.

Yeah. That's exactly what happened. The hug went on so long because they got stuck together.

Note to Shales: not jewelry. Dog tags. Her dead sons dog tags.

But that's not enough. Shales isn't done. He has one more thing to get off his chest:

The president, strikingly, stared up at the balcony with little visible emotion on his face but eyes that appeared to be growing misty. Was this a genuine expression of America appreciating its men and women in uniform, or a shameless political stunt using grief-stricken parents as pawns? As we all know in the age of media moments, it matters less what it was than what it was perceived to be, and to a greater degree than perhaps any other time since he's been in office, Bush appeared to have the perception presidency well in hand.

So, maybe it was all staged.

Interesting suggestion.

But watch the tape again (you'll have plenty of chances today.) Those parents Shales thinks may have been "pawns?"

It was Mrs. Norwood who reached for the Iraqi woman, not the other way around.

Update: Brutal. This may be one of the most devastating posts ever. I loved it. Naturally. (Via Instapundit.)

Update: The blog watcher over at CJR points out that Shales' job title has been revamped, giving him an apparent permanent upgrade to the big kid's table. I'll concede I missed that, since they don't put his pieces with the editorials on their web page. But, you know, title schmitle -- the guy's been a TV critic for years, TV is what he knows, and TV is the grounding for his analysis.

This would appear to let the Post's assignment editor off the hook. They didn't make a one-time, gimmicky assignment, asking Shales to write a piece he's patently unqualified to write, as they often did with Shales in the past. Instead I gather they broadened the nature of his portfolio, making a permanent change, and asking him to write all sorts of pieces he won't be qualified to write.

My mistake.

Update: My apologies again, it's a bit too late to be posting. I didn't mean with the editorials, I meant his pieces are not, like the editorials, or Kurtz's columns, generally on the home page, and I don't normally have cause to go looking for them. I only notice Shales when he's writing on major political events.

Comments

[John]

Wow! That is a terribly stupid question.

Tom Shales *IS* the Washington Post's TV critic.

The State of the Union is a TV event.

Why not have the TV critic write about a TV event from a purely TV perspective?

Newspapers across the country have their TV critics write about political events strictly from how it looks as a viewer.

Shales isn't a movie critic, yet he writes about the Oscars every year. He's been writing about Bush's speeches for years, and Clinton's speeches, and Reagan's speeches, etc, etc.

You probably should pay closer attention.

[Konnie19Lk]

Hello, want all read just about this good post? In the online writing jobs is not really hard to find all you need!