Dispatch's New "Buckeye Forum" Podcast So Bad My Ears Bleed
Anyone listen to the Dispatch's new "Buckeye Forum" yet? If you're looking for a quick way to give yourself an aneurysm, BF is a solid choice.
..Don't feel left out Alan Johnson, I'd have included you here too, but I can't find your picture.
Make no mistake, this is not a partisan rant. Rather I can't believe how poor quality the analysis is in this new podcast from the Dispatch. The paper takes Joe Hallett, Alan Johnson, and Darrell Rowland - arguable three of Ohio's most lauded political reporters - and tosses them in a room with a microphone to talk shop. Instead of producing new, thoughtful commentary on familiar subjects, the journalists rehash Dispatch articles and kowtow conventional wisdom. A quarter hour later I found myself questioning why the Dispatch used this forum in the first place. My best guess is that they're employing new technology (blogs, podcast) in an effort to reach out to their younger demographic, and the portion of their subscription base threatened by online news outlets, blogs, and new wave tech. The problem though is that listening to the Buckeye Forum doesn't "feel" any different than reading a Dispatch news article; however, instead of taking five minutes to read, this takes sixteen to listen to.
Starting with a hokey "real newsroom" jingle that can't help but make you blush for the paper, the Forum explores two topics, a discussion of recent results from a Quinny Poll, and "what's going on" in the presidential primary nominating process. Discussion on the Quinny poll is better, but is limited to a talk of whether or not Ohio really hates gays. The forum seems to take an upswing in analysis when they breach the topic of whether the CCV's organizing over the past 3 years has led to this sentiment, but just as soon as the organizing aspect comes up it's gone. Without taking a definitive position on Fred Thompson, the commentators waste a few more minutes until the eventually get into a discussion on the primary.
Really the word "discussion" is kind for what the forum does. In all actuality Alan Johnson feeds Darrell Rowalnd and Joe Hallett a series of questions that they answer individually. There's no dynamic feel or even argument. It's a just of series of answers, one after another after another. Exciting this is not.
The primary discussion sounds like a rehash of my Grandma talking about "how long these campaigns are these days." Seriously, it's that bad. Starting with what the primary schedule will be, the commentators entirely miss the point. Discussing how South Carolina recently moved their Primary up, Hallett acknowledges New Hampshire law requires first in the nation primary status, and that he's unsure when that primary is scheduled for now, but that they'll have to move up. The point that soars past the Dispatch is that these early primary states - Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and the like - have never really had a solid date for their primaries scheduled, and in return the campaigns on the ground have a very "loosey goosey" feel for when they'll actually have to organize their troops. Depending on which campaign is better prepared for this uncertainty, the fluctuations in scheduling could have a massive impact on the results of the race itself. Additionally, there's a "cold war" element in this jockeying for position at the front of the schedule. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are united on the order they prefer; the biggest rogue element is Nevada, the Democratic Party establishment, and whether any other states will sneeze their way to the front of the pack. And of course, the order of the primary calendar could have massive implications on which contender (on both the Republican and Democratic slates) secures their nominations. Regrettably, this discussion is lost in the "Buckeye Forum" as Hallett and the other commentators rush back to the same polling numbers that every other journalist is talking about.
Furthermore, they touch on the Ohio primary. Correctly, the Forum points out that Americans will more likely than not know the nominees on February 5th and the Ohio primary is inconsequential, but analysis is limited to this very conventional wisdom. As I was listening to the podcast for the first time, I actually got up and started pacing at this point as I waited for Hallett or Rowland to explain what this all MEANS. Eagerly I waited for an argument about the merits of a 9 month campaign, or the dynamic this will have on issue advocacy groups, or or or ANYTHING. Instead, the panel lamented about the loss of retail politics in New York, Illinois and California (no crap). It was just so disappointing - these are supposedly Ohio's brightest political writers and they can't even scrape below the surface.
Ending the podcast, one panelist chimed in with this gem:
I think it's still Hillary's to lose. Polls show Edwards has to win Iowa to remain viable, he could go to NH and maybe win there. The expectations are for him to win Iowa. I just don't know what'll happen on the Republican side, it's hard to guess.
Of course they "Don't know what'll happen on the Republican side".... no one else has written anything for them on this yet.
