RK ARCHIVE - The Decline of the Corporate Media: Part Gazillion

First, there's the headline, "Charismatic Governor Rises to the Short List." I mean, I've heard a lot of adjectives - both positive and negative - used to describe Tim Kaine over the past few years. But "charismatic" isn't one I can recall hearing before. I mean, Barack Obama's charismatic. Arnold Schwarzenegger is charismatic. Bill Clinton is charismatic. But Tim Kaine? I'd say "enthusiastic," maybe even the New York Times reporter's description of Kaine as "mix[ing] the booming encouragement of a high school coach with the nodding affirmation of a preacher." OK, if that's what constitutes "charisma" these days, I guess he's got it. But regardless, why is the New York Times editorializing like this (later in the article, the reporter calls Kaine "an inspiring speaker") in an ostensibly "objective" news story? Quick, I hear a rant from Helen Thomas about the decline of the corporate media coming on! :)

Second, with a few exceptions - Larry Sabato says that Tim Kaine is in the "bottom quartile of governors" - this article reads like it was written by one of Gov. Kaine's staffers or family members or something. Since when does a New York Times political piece have sentences that begin, "Broad shouldered, with an easy smile..." What is this, a bad romance novel?

Third, the reporter lists as one of Kaine's great accomplishments that "He eliminated the estate tax." Whether or not you agree with that, and I couldn't disagree more strongly, since when is it the job of an "objective" journalist to slip in such blatant editorializing in the middle of (what's supposed to be) a straight news article? Lame.

Finally, the article ends with a glaring factual error, one that indicates a minimum of knowledge by the reporter about Virginia.

Uh, no. Actually, Virginia's state senate elections were in 2007, not 2006. Nice try, though!

Comments

I for one (Kris Amundson - 8/15/2008 9:33:46 AM)

Know that we would NEVER have picked up 5 seats in the House without the Governor's help. He did more than any Virginia Governor ever has to help candidates--and that includes Gov. Warner, who had set the bar pretty high. I think anyone in the Senate will tell you their ability to take over had a lot to do with the fact that they outspent their opponents . . . and that the Governor's support was what made that possible.

I think that... (Lowell - 8/15/2008 9:41:58 AM)

...along with mental health reform and Gov. Kaine's superb response to the Virginia Tech tragedy have been the highlights of his governorship.

Okay, I'll concede . . . (bob brink - 8/15/2008 9:53:07 AM)

. . . that the NYT profile is pretty much a Big Wet One (though it does have a couple of On The Other Hands). But I'm not certain that the "glaring factual error" is all that glaring, or all that much of an error. The Governor's prodigious fundraising for the 2007 cycle that Kris mentioned didn't start at the stroke of midnight on 01-01-07. Besides, nobody can understand Virginia's election schedule ;-)

Bob Brink

Forgot about the estate tax. (Rutchy - 8/15/2008 10:46:25 AM)

Now I remember why I have such low expectations. A governor who brags about removing a tax on the state's richest, and a legislature that easily invents "fees" (as in "abusive driver") but never raises a tax for transportation (as in "gas.")

That cost the state around (Lowell - 8/15/2008 10:51:58 AM)

$140 million per year, all to help a few hundred of the richest families in Virginia. Over four years, we're talking $560 million, a big chunk of our current budget deficit...

Another way to look at it (Lowell - 8/15/2008 11:20:41 AM)

is that keeping the estate tax would have fully paid for Tim Kaine's pre-K initiative, which according to Gov. Kaine's website, would "cost approximately $125 million annually at full implementation, approximately $75 million more than the $50 million the state currently spends each year on programs for at-risk four-year-olds." But noooooo...gotta help those few hundred super-rich families, they need it MUCH more than the at-risk 4 year olds!!! (*****snark*****)