The (Howard) Dean Scream
 

Interesting article from Edward Wasserman (Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University in Virginia) in the Miami Herald about the so-called "Dean Scream" and the media's culpability in shaping Howard Dean's image.

'The Dean Scream'


"And with Dean's recent appointment as Democratic Party chairman it's being hauled out as constituting the ceiling on whatever political ambitions he might still have, proof that he's shaky, unstable, unfit to serve -- Howard Dean's Chappaquiddick.

You've seen the clip. After Janet Jackson's ''wardrobe malfunction'' at the Super Bowl, it's the most famous news video of 2004. Dean is addressing campaign supporters after he lost the Iowa party caucuses in January. He's screaming for no apparent reason, practically shrieking, ticking off the states where he's vowing to continue the race. His face is red, his voice breaking. He looks deranged. It's a portrait of a man out of control. It's documentary evidence that Dean lacks the temperament for high office.

In fact the Dean Scream was a fraud, probably the clearest instance of media assassination in recent U.S. political history.

Last year, a young cable news producer attended one of our twice-yearly Ethics Institutes at Washington and Lee University, in which students and journalists gather to discuss newsroom wrongdoing. He brought two clips.

• The first was the familiar pool footage of Dean in Iowa. The candidate filled the screen, no supporters were visible. Crowd noise was silenced by the microphone he held, which deadened ambient sounds. You saw only him and heard only his inexplicable screaming.

• The second clip was the same speech taped by a supporter on the floor of the hall. The difference was stunning. The place was packed. The noise was deafening. Dean was on the podium, but you couldn't hear him. The roar from his supporters was drowning him out.

Dean was no longer scary, unhinged, volcanic, over the top. He was like the coach of a would-be championship NCAA football team at a pre-game rally, trying to be heard over a gym full of determined, wildly enthusiastic fans. I saw energy, not lunacy.

The difference was context. As psychiatrist R.D. Laing once wrote: We see a woman on her knees, eyes closed, muttering to someone who isn't there. Of course, she's praying. But if we deny her that context, we naturally conclude she's insane.

The Dean Scream footage that was repeatedly aired rests on a similar falsehood. It takes a man who in context was acting reasonably, and by stripping away that context transforms him into a lunatic.

But that clip was aired an estimated 700 times on various cable and broadcast channels in the week after the Iowa caucus. The people who showed that clip are far more technically sophisticated than I and had to understand how tight visual framing and noise-suppression hardware can distort reality."

There was a small bit on this just after the incident, because so many people who were there knew the real story. Unfortunately, it did not make it to mainstream media, primarily because the outlets either were embarassed by their culpability with regards to spreading the story, or it did not fit their agenda. Sad, isn't it?

In keeping with the media manipulation theme here- I noticed an article, at Fox, of all places, that theorises that the actual person behind the CBS debacle was Carl Rove. I thought that from the first, since it would be such an A****er thing to do, and Rove was A****er's protege. We'll see if it goes anywhere, though. :rolleyes:

Lol! It edited A t w a t e r , and I just realised why...

Hehehe. Alright, alright, I'll fix that. This is the second time we've run across that (last time being the city name). I was ammused by it, so I left it in, but that will eventually get annoying.

I actually respect Dean and think the scream was played up far more than it should have been. I respect him because he typically says what he means. I thought the scream was funny, but shouldn't have been.....campaign ending.

I had no clue about the context thing. Bummer. He'll never recover from that. I'm surprised the "liberal media" didn't help him out. I guess they were just looking for ratings, per usual.

I suspect you're right, CP. Still, I'm sure it will come out eventually, when Rove suffers his inevitable downfall or is stricken with a terminal illness and decides to come clean, like his mentor. Dean was elected to lead the DNC, so perhaps he will be able to overcome this, but I still don't think he's a strong enough candidate.

I also supported Dean and think he is a good guy who got a raw deal with the whole scream thing. I doubt he could ever truly bounce back from that.

Damn liberal media.

Liberal media was thinking big picture. Dean would have gotten slaughtered, and they knew that. I do not think the democrat leadership wanted Dean to win the nomination.

Ever since Nixon's sweaty upperlip may have lost him the election to Kennedy, Candidates have had to be more media savvy. They must be aware of how they look in a crowd, how they look on TV, and how they might sound on radio - all of these images impact their potential electability. Right or wrong it's the political reality.

Dean could have recovered from the scream, but at the time it happend his campaign was already running out of steam and it became a symbol of that fact. The media siezed on that, as they should - capturing the alegoric images to tell the tale in 30 seconds or less.

Reagen and Clinton were experts on managing their image, both took some embarrassing hits in their tenure but managed to ride them out and see their approval ratings soar. Dean just failed at having a proper comeback.

eh, I have a problem buying into the concept that the dems were behind the medias actions. But you knew that, didn't you? :)

Yeah, scaeagles is almost as paranoid as I am. :cheers:

Exactly true!

If one looks at the evolution of presidential campaigns, it's been a downward spiral almost since the start. Once the US got out of the habit of choosing their own candidates (as opposed to the current method of candidates choosing themselves, and then gaining support)... Well... There ya go!

The Nixon-Kennedy debates was the elevator up to the next level, and anyone who is seriously considering being a contender for anything above freshman class president has to keep an eye on their backside. It pays to have the best staff and to keep the cool. :cheers:

While I agree with €uro and blueerica on Dean's inability to bounce back, I also have to really take issue with the press.
I don't consider myself paranoid, even if there is a vast [fill in your own damn agenda] conspiracy. Political bent or not, I believe that the biggest problem with the mainstream press is laziness. I remember taking Journalism 101 with Ed Diamond @ NYU back in the '80s and we spent a lot of time on press releases. Even 20 years ago, it was clear that a well-written release was all you needed to make sure the story got the spin you were looking for. With few exceptions, mostly in print journalism, the news is less of a presentation or (God forbid) an interpretation, but is pretty much pure regurgitation, or as John Stewart called it on Crossfire, "partisan hackery."
For me, serious coverage of the US Presidential campaigns ended on board "The Monkey Business."

But that's just my opinion.

I think it's a very interesting article. Like the Janet 'scandal', I wondered why this one was taken so far. It made no sense. I wasn't a big Dean fan, I was more in the Kerry camp, but I thought the whole thing portrayed him unfairly. Oh well.

Lately, I guess after seeing Harry Shearer in person speak about media responsibility in Monterey, I have been questioning all sides of the media spectrum. I don't believe a damn thing the left and right media has to say. I've turned off CNN, Fox 'News' and all TV news. It's all bunk. I've been enjoying surfing Google News and reading things from all sorts of perspectives.

I'm concerned about ownership rules. When one person can control several media outlets, I question that. It means someone rich can mold our country based on their own beliefs. Yikes.

I'm not sure which side assassinated Dean's chances at the presidency. One could say it was the liberal media, but Dean was the strongest voice for causes liberals support. One could say it was the right, but wasn't the Bush team expecting a Dean win and molding their campaign fights facing him?

I dunno.

Kill your TV. Read your news.

That's the most important thing. I never trust a single source.

I agree wholeheartedly, GC. I stopped watching tv news several years ago, and don't miss it at all. I scour the various news outlets, and also the news feeds, and I compare and contrast to see the angle they seem to slant it. Then, I try and settle somewhere in the middle.

I think that's awesome. Problem is, I think most of our country doesn't do that. They don't want to take the time to sort things out. They want black and white answers right now from some place quick. They want quick sound bytes and pictures. That's what happened to Dean, one clip played over and over. That's what caught the nation's short short attention span.

I blame Starbucks. ;)

I get some of my info the old fashioned way: the op-ed page of my local paper. I don't do a damn thing in the morning until I've had my coffee and read the entire newspaper. The Sacramento Bee is pretty fair when it comes to providing equal time to both sides of the aisle. I read 'em all too. Liberals such as Molly Ivins as well as the whacko conservatives like George Will. I prefer to get both sides of the story before siding with the liberals. :D


The article that inspired this thread ran in The Bee today.

Hold on....George Will is whacko? Ivins is as psycho as they get! There are some liberals I'll read, but Ivins isn't one of them.

Molly Ivins is cool. I saw her on CSPAN once, she's one tough cookie. I do listen to some far out commentators, too. But I draw the line at nutcase Michael Savage. What a moron.
:)

The only thing Michael savages is the English language. I can't stand to listen to him speak- he mangles the spoken word to such an extreme that I can't even hear whatever message he is trying to convey.

Oh, and George Will is a nutjob.

:D

Are you sure you don't have Ivins confused with Ann Coulter.

She knows Dubya as well or better than anyone. Perhaps her on target assessments of Bush makes her appear psycho? I'd say that's more a commentary on Bush than Molly's mental state.


George Will....his best work was the baseball book Men At Work. That book was so good I read it twice. Perhaps he should give up politics and stick to baseball.

Hey Leo, Ann's the ugly(ier) one.

NOW DON'T GO DISSIN' MY ANN!

You're gonna get me mad!

Mmmm....Ann.......but then, an image of the aged and shrivley Ivins pops in my head, and I shudder with terror.

But it's so much fun to dis Ann.
Here's a link to the CBC show The Fifth Estate

There's a link in the second paragraph that'll take you right to a priceless AC clip.