more on the “Thrilla in Hornella”
The D&C has a pretty good piece about the Kuhl/Massa debate(s?). The one that Kuhl has agreed to will henceforth be known on this blog as “The Thrilla in Hornella.” The piece begins with a few paragraphs of claptrap from the Kuhl campaign (”he’s distorting my record”, etc.), yet manages to lay out the facts in a way that makes Kuhl look a bit silly. My only gripe is that it was on Page B5. It belongs on the frontpage, or near it at least. I’ll have more to say about that later.
Joseph Spector, who wrote the article, seems to be working the Massa/Kuhl campaign beat — he wrote the article on Q2 fundraising as well. We’re lucky for that, as he seems to be a good reporter. He certainly gets right to the heart of the matter here:
But while Rep. Kuhl may be fed up, he’s not yet taking his fight to the larger media outlets in the 29th Congressional District, which runs from Monroe County to the Southern Tier.
Kuhl on Tuesday challenged Massa to a radio debate on WLEA-AM (1480) in Hornell, Steuben County. The 2,500-watt station doesn’t reach the Rochester market.
Here’s what I think the Kuhl campaign is doing: they don’t really want to debate Massa, of course, but they know they have to. So they arrange a single debate on a low wattage station that no one will be able to hear. Then they can say they’ve debated without paying the price of a debate, i.e. without showing much of the public that Eric Massa is a much better candidate, both in terms of the issues and in terms of competence.
Well said.
Ok, who’s going down to record this? I can’t believe Kuhl is such a friggin scaredy-cat.
I’ll be interested in hearing why you think it belonged on the front page. I thought the D&C played it pretty smart (for once), and actually sent a message to the Kuhl campaign. That message is: we won’t just print your press releases verbatim, and we won’t get locked into the “on the one hand/on the other hand” style of journalism that benefits candidates making silly charges.
They sent this message by allowing their reporter to do a little bit of real reporting rather than just “battling quotations”. The open skepticism of the first and second graphs had to sting when Kuhl read them, along with the careful exposition of just how tiny WLEA is. Then, by burying the story, they didn’t give the Kuhl campaign the satisfaction of airing their b.s. charges where anyone was paying attention.
For those of us who like to follow every little twist and turn of a political campaign, this was a fascinating story, more for what was unsaid than was said. To the average voter, who has lots of things better to do, it was a non-story and the D&C’s back-page placement is appropriate. It says “move along, nothing much to see here”.
I agree 100% with you analysis Rot.
I see your point, Rottechester, and if they were going to do just do a Kuhl press release, then better that they bury it. But given the way the story was treated by the reporter, I would rather it be given more prominent placement. It’s a short article and you can’t read it without thinking “Kuhl is afraid of a real debate”.
I think that Kuhl wants the debate to get as little play as possible. He wants to be able to say he debated Massa without having anyone pay attention to the debate (which Kuhl will surely lose). Ignoring the debate plays right into his hands that way.
That’s how I see it, at least.
I could go with front page of the B section under the fold.
I could go with front page of the B section under the fold.
That’s probably about right, in my opinion. It shouldn’t be on the front page, but it shouldn’t be deep in the woods of Section B, either.
It would be nice if someone shamed Kuhl into a legitimate debate, and for that reason, the D&C could certainly have stepped to the plate for voters in the district. But at the same time, we’re talking about the first offer in a bidding war: no one is expected to agree to thier opponent’s terms, and no one is going to get eight debates out of anyone, in this district or any other. What matters is that the conversation has started. The challenger has to challenge and the incumbent has to avoid the debate, regardless of the parties involved.
But as long as we’re talking, did I mention that Clean Money, Clean Elections demands that participants engage in a regular schedule of debates?
I’d like to learn more about Clean Money, Clean Elections. Maybe when things slow down after November.