Confidential memorandum outlines how one network will cover the Republican National Convention

Scott and John do most of the original reporting on Power Line, but once in while I get my hands on something big. Rarely have I come up with anything bigger than this confidential memorandum from the chief of an unnamed news network regarding how his organization will cover the Republican National Convention. Here's the memo in its entirety:

We all know that network news coverage of national conventions has come in for severe criticism in recent years. While no one expects gavel-to-gavel coverage anymore, we've been accused of superficial and insufficient coverage, and of refusing to allow the parties to tell their story in their words before we pounce.

This year's Republican convention provides us with a golden opportunity to restore our convention coverage to its former glory. If we handle things properly, and follow the guidance set forth below for each day of the convention, we can give the Republicans all the air time they want while still providing our viewers with the real story of the convention.

Bush will be speaking on Monday and it is imperative that he dominate our coverage. After all, we do not wish to be accused of paying insufficient attention to the sitting president. What I'm saying is that Monday should be all Bush, all the time.

Several themes need to be teased out. One is that this is still Bush's party. Thus, we need to capture the raw enthusiasm that some delegates no doubt will exhibit for Bush. Look for such delegates. Top priority should go to "large" delegates and delegates who are wearing McCain buttons and/or hats. Viewers should confront the very real prospect that McCain will give them a third Bush term.

Bush's speech will no doubt be a defense of his administration. Though few viewers will be duped, this is our opportunity to do some real reporting. I've thus authorized two exclusive video presentations that will air prior to Bush's speech; (1) the history of the Iraq War: 2004-2006 and (2) the Bush economy: 2001 and 2008.

With Bush out of the way, Republicans will turn to what they do best -- bashing the opposition. The heavy guns will be trained on Obama and it will become imperative that we capture the raw hatred, and dare I say envy, that the delegates will manifest. Close-up shots and interviews with the meanest looking (and "largest") delegates are strongly encourage. If a delegate seems too restrained, pose well-phrased questions such as: "Are you bothered by the fact that Obama doesn't look like the presidents on our paper money?" and "Do you think an Obama presidency will restore our image overseas?"

It is not our place, of course, to attribute the rabid hatred these delegates feel towards Obama to race. But viewers may be able to connect the dots if we intersperse our coverage with film clips of Bull Conner, old-time Alabama state troopers (preferably "large"), and the hosing and beating of black protesters in the early 1960s.

On Wednesday, the focus will finally be on McCain. May I suggest that emerging theme here will be the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the overwhelmingly right-wing delegates for this once-moderate, formerly independent-thinking candidate? Look for evangelical delegates (especially "large" ones) and for delegates wearing buttons or hats with other candidates' names like Huckabee, Romney and above all, Ron Paul. If a moderate like Tom Ridge speaks, this will be our opportunity to return to the gavel-to-gavel, speaker-oriented model, with frequent shots of bored or pissed-off delegates.

I've also contacted ZZZ ZZZZZZZZ, who covered every convention from 1948 through 2000. He's still a trooper and can be counted to report that he's never seen a convention less enthusiastic about its nominee.

This is when McCain gives his "acceptance" speech. This is the kind of boring, set-piece that gives convention coverage a bad name. Still, we're obliged to cover it. We owe our viewers "context," however. To provide it, we will replay Obama's acceptance speech twice, once before McCain's and once after. This will enable viewers to decide for themselves which candidate is fresher and more eloquent.

We may also have to cut away from McCain's speech once or twice. Real Salt Lake is playing Chivas USA that night in a huge Major League Soccer match.

The past two Republican conventions have produced a not inconsiderable bounce for the GOP. This has given rise to plausible charges that our coverage has been slanted in favor of the Republicans. By following the principles set forth above, we can do our best to make sure that there is no bounce, and hence no bias, in our coverage.

I used to really enjoy writing satire, but it has become almost impossible to do political satire anymore. Satire, in order to be, is using wit to parody, burlesque or ridicule a particular subject. Over the last 5-10 years, there isn’t much of anything that can be said, written or thought of that wouldn’t actually seem completely plausible and believable, which leaves the viewer or listener completely unable to identify the piece as satire. “Reductio ad absurdum” doesn’t work ‘cuz there’s no “absurdum” anymore.

It used to be that the Onion was featured prominently on a lot of FR threads. I’ve noticed that fewer and fewer posts quote from there, as more and more people will misunderstand and believe what is written is actually true. *That* is exactly the problem. If you can’t legitimately determine between actual reality and satire, then it seems that it is no longer satire. Satire requires a grain of truth, but then either exaggeration, parody, irony or derision is added to show that the reality is beyond the pale. Nowdays, it seems that nothing is beyond the pale— most anything written by the LamestreamPress, broadcast by the “if it don’t bleed, it’s invisible” snooze media and virtually everything done by corrupt, brain dead policitians **seems** to be pure sensationalism and outlandish. Like printing a written page, if EVERYTHING is printed in BOLD CAPS, there isn’t any possible way of emphasizing any singular points.

This is the way it has become with satire. Quotes or articles from The AZConservative, The Onion, and sources of attempted satire are taken as wholly truthful and legit by many- if not most- readers, because everything seems completely believable and plausible, no matter how far fetched it is.

I’ve given up. I’ve wanted to put a satirical blog online for several years, but ya just can’t top what’s currently being written- and none of it is satire!

I was shooting a direct-to-video movie a few years ago, and there was a small segment that called for an on-the-scene news reporter to breathlessly describe the situation. I decided I’d use it to get my 15 seconds of ‘cameo’ in, and several of us tried to write a satire of the typical MSM snooze reporter covering a building bombing- bright windbreaker, placard on mike, standing in front of crime scene tape, the whole works. Didn’t work out. There was nothing that we could write or act like that wasn’t being done even worse by our nightly local snooze reporters. We shot the scene, but just gave up on the satire part because it just couldn’t top reality.

That’s when I knew there was no use trying to do satire, especially political satire. No matter how far out you get, you still can’t tell the difference between the satire and the real situation. It’s frustrating on both sides- the reader/viewer can never be sure if what they are getting is the truth, or if their leg isn’t being pulled by someone trying to satirize something, and the writer has to stretch completely beyond satire so the reader/viewer will **know** it’s satire.

A perfect example is this thread and the credulous/incredulous responses.

Humor is one thing, satire is totally different and becoming an endangered art form.

#8^D

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.