Posted by
Ed Lilly on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:11:15 PM
Patrick Ruffini has
a post on Hugh Hewitt's blog discussing the changing nature of media as it relates to political campaigns. Here's the first part of his post, which I've clipped off to end at the part that made me curious (and I have highlighted the pertinent sections):
Let me throw out a counterfactual.
If we had had blogs when Bill Clinton was President, he would have been a lot less effective and his approval ratings lower.
Bloggers, who shape more and more of the coverage, deal largely in the printed word. Until YouTube, video was utterly irrelevant to our commentary. Even now, a well-informed blogger can go through an entire day without turning on the TV and watching the speech for him or herself.
On the whole, this will tend to devalue eloquence, smooth-talk, whatever you want to call it. It will reward the politician who is clear, direct, and succinct, whose words make sense in 12-point Times New Roman.
I think this is part of why Mitt Romney is having a hard time escaping the flip-flopper charge, something that also dogged Bill Clinton. Yes, he’s a Republican, so he doesn’t get media brownie points. There are also the YouTube-style ambushes you just wouldn’t have seen in 1992. (There was an amusing scene in The War Room in which Carville et al. were debating whether to use footage of Bush signs being made in Brazil that some volunteer taped off a college public access channel. That wouldn’t be up for discussion in 2008. Someone would have YouTubed it.)
But an overlooked point is that we now have an entire class of opinion leaders that look to the text-driven Internet, not television, to shape their coverage. To a large degree, these opinion leaders will be immune from the charms of a Clinton or a Romney. ...
Specifically with respect to Romney, I found this interesting. More to the point, I listened to a podcast recently where Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, and John Podhoretz, columnist with the NY Post and I think now part of Commentary's online editorial team, were interviewed about the ongoing presidential campaigns. Prof. Reynolds I think refers to himself as libertarian leaning, though he is also I believe widely perceived by those on the political left as being very conservative. Mr. Podhoretz is, I think, a political conservative. He was a long-time poster on National Review Online's The Corner.
In any event, what struck me in reading Mr. Ruffini's post was my recollection of the comments both Prof. Reynolds and Mr. Podhoretz made in assessing Romney's candidacy. Both viewed Romney as the kind of candidate that became more UNattractive the more they were exposed to him, via ads, campaign appearances, etc. I believe Prof. Reynolds even referred to Romney as having a certain "oily" quality that was off-putting the more he saw of the candidate.
I have certainly seen photos of Romney, and am vaguely familiar with his history, but I have never actually seen Romney give a speech or perform in a debate. I have heard him interviewed on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, and based only on knowing his general background and hearing him talk to Mr. Hewitt, Romney seemed like a pretty reasonable guy.
It just seemed surprising to me to hear two opinion leaders like Prof. Reynolds and Mr. Podhoretz, who I expect have seen a lot more of Romney in action than I have, both react with increasing dislike for him the more they see him. And that seems to kind of contradict Mr. Ruffini's view that television exposure is to Romney's benefit.
I guess I don't have a real point here, just something that made me stop and wonder where a conversation between Ruffini, Reynolds and Podhoretz may go on this topic.