Let me count the ways that
this Politico "awards dinner" was wrong to the point of moronic. Premise: giving awards to two prominent Republicans and two prominent Democrats for being "policymakers of the year." The wonderful and very serious choices were EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who gets the nod for being attacked on all fronts for stupid, often imaginary reasons but not retaliating with gangland-style executions or the like, Paul Ryan, for "getting everyone talking about" cutting healthcare for senior citizens, and Patrick Leahy and Lamar Smith, for coming together in noble, bipartisany fashion to reform patents in not altogether helpful ways but what the hell, we'll take what we can get because, as the Politico announcement itself points out, there was literally
no other significant tech legislation passed during the entire year.
1. The entire notion of these "award dinners." The idea is to get some prominent politicians to come to your event. Well, that's not going to happen, and paying them is problematic, but if you tell them they've won some award? They'll come running like cats to the sound of a can opener. Even better: naming them "something-something of the Year," which sounds even more prestigious. If you're wondering why, of all the possible categories to chose from, they came up with Healthcare, Technology and Energy, and not say, Transportation, Economy and Banking, it is because who gives a crap, and also because those other folks said they weren't available to attend an awards dinner that night. It is such a transparent ploy for attention, on the part of both the honorees and the honorers, as to be ridiculous.
2. The notion of a news organization, specifically, "honoring" individual political figures. No. You are a news organization. Your job is to cover what political figures do, not give them sparkly awards for doing it. With all the sniffling about being "objective" and the like, how "objective" will future coverage look when, in all the next stories written about Paul Ryan, the disclaimer is added: Paul Ryan, who was named a Policymaker of the Year by this organization, who hosted a goddamn event in his honor but we're still all neutral and stuff. What's that? There won't be such a disclaimer? Well, golly.
3. Two Democrats honored, and two Republicans honored. Not coincidental. Neutral! You could have two absolutely brilliant honorees at one of these dinners, and to achieve enough neutrality to cover your ass you'd have to pair them up with whatever imbeciles you could come up with from the other side, just so that other side wouldn't call you Narnia-hating communist Nazi sympathizers. This probably should be known in the future as the Paul Ryan rule, after the fellow who was crowned intellectual king of the Republican caucus for the ability to write down numbers on a piece of paper, even if all the math involved was wrong and the suppositions were based on fabricated, imaginary data. Holy hell, the guy wrote something? With numbers? Crap, give that fellow an award.
4. Let's talk more about Paul Ryan, specifically. No, let's just repeat what Paul Krugman said about it, for efficiency:
Even if you like the thrust of Ryan’s ideas, even if you think privatizing Medicare and turning it into a voucher scheme is fine, what became painfully, embarrassingly clear during the debate over the Ryan plan was that Ryan is, well, incompetent; the plan was a mess, from its invocation of ludicrous Heritage Foundation projections to its crazy assertions about what would happen to discretionary spending. It's true that the plan "got everyone talking," as Politico says—but mostly it got people talking about what a mess Ryan's effort was.
Oh, and it was pretty clear that Ryan wasn't being honest about his own numbers.
Krugman's point, though more artfully phrased, is that political reporters are generally so dim that you can throw anything at them, no matter how flawed, and they will be impressed by it. Ryan's plan didn't even add up according to his own premises. It would have resulted in a considerably worse situation for anyone on Medicare, yes, but it also just wouldn't have worked, and that became known almost immediately after he released his so-called plan. Doesn't matter. Being boldly incompetent is worth more than being subtle but competent, any day of the week.
5. Let's talk about Leahy and Smith, specifically. Repeating what Media Matters said, again for efficiency:
Smith and Leahy are also the chief sponsors of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), respectively. [...]
Just about everyone hates these bills ... but the entertainment industry loves them. And among the sponsors of the Politico awards gala is the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the video game industry's chief lobbying group. According to disclosure records, the ESA has spent thousands of dollars this year lobbying in support of PIPA, designated S.968. [...] ESA has also donated $1,000 to Smith each election cycle going back to 2008. They donated $2,400 to Leahy in 2010.
Now that's just ridiculous. I'm sorry, but that's not an easily dismissible bit of trivia. Two senators come up with an entertainment-industry favored bill that nearly everyone else on the planet can agree is a rotten, no-good, nasty idea. Then, glory be, those two senators get an "award" for their sweet, sweet policymaking paid for in large part by the industry in question. Well, it's not an out-and-out bribe, I'll grant you that. It's not even unusual. As I said, these ridiculous "awards" ceremonies are wonderful ways to suck up to elected public officials without it being called lobbying or running afoul of laws against gift-giving.
The ridiculous part is having a political news outlet play happy host to such shenanigans. Politico should be blasting compliant politicians for getting "awards" from lobbying organizations, not sponsoring the damn events themselves.
Really, a colossal foul-up on any number of levels. We often point readers here to Politico articles, but make no mistake: The outlet is, in many ways, emblematic of the poor separation between the political press and those they are supposed to be reporting on.
On this date at Daily Kos in 2006:
I wonder if the voters in Maine approve of Susan Collins' efforts to put an unreconstructed racist back in the leadership of her party.
Sen. Trent Lott’s (R-Miss.) stunning return to the Senate leadership was made possible by the last-minute defections of Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) from Sen. Lamar Alexander’s (R-Tenn.) rival campaign for Republican whip.
John Sununu, just to the south in New Hampshire, was also a big support[er] of Trent Lott.
Both these guys sell themselves as "moderates" to the home crowd. But their actions speak louder.
High Impact Posts are here. Top Comments are here.