I will be a panelist at the New Jersey Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting on Friday, Feb. 28.
I was invited to organize and take part in a panel that will explore the topics I researched for my doctoral dissertation — media coverage of New Jersey’s gubernatorial elections. The session is titled “New Jersey’s Changing Media Landscape: The Impact on Voters, Elections and Chris Christie’s Future.”
My wife Anne Lee, who teaches a Women, Minorities and the Media course at St. Bonaventure University, will take part in a “Women in New Jersey Politics: The View from Academia, The View from the Field” panel at the meeting.
The conference will take place at the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J.
# # #
Like most developments in the ongoing bridgegate saga, the Christie Administration’s 5 Things You Should Know About The Bombshell That’s Not A Bombshell email has raised more questions than answers.
Among the new questions is: If the governor had such a poor opinion of David Wildstein, why did he appoint him to an influential post at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey?
But that’s not the only contradictory message emerging from the email.
The email begins with strong language criticizing The New York Times for “sloppy reporting” that set off a “media firestorm.” But the message then cites numerous media reports to support its comments about Wildstein and his demeanor.
Granted, the email targets just one news report in one publication and is not a blanket criticism of all media. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that the Governor’s Office has no qualms about using news reports that bolster its arguments, but is quick to criticize the media when the reporting raises new and legitimate questions about the governor’s role in bridgegate.
# # #
Chris Christie may have lost the first few rounds of “bridgegate,” but there’s still plenty of rounds to go, and don’t be surprised if he’s still standing when the final bell sounds.
Sure, the New Jersey governor suffered some serious blows last week when emails and texts surfaced showing that high level staffers in his office played a role in orchestrating traffic tie-ups on the George Washington Bridge and in Fort Lee, apparently as political retribution against the city’s mayor. But by the time the week came to a close, Christie had safely navigated his way through a minefield that threatened his political future. More minefields may lie ahead, but for now, the governor is well positioned. Here’s why:
First, he did everything right when it comes to crisis communication. He fired the people he said were responsible. He made himself accessible to the press — and answered reporters’ questions for nearly two hours at a news conference. He was apologetic and repeatedly said he was misled and felt humiliated. And he traveled to Fort Lee to personally apologize to the mayor.
As I wrote on Friday, none of what Christie did will work if it turns out he’s not being honest about how much he knew and the extent of his role in the affair. Since then, however, another 2,000 pages of documents have been made public, and although those documents revealed a series of disturbing actions on the part of Christie’s staff, nothing yet has shown the governor was directly involved in the decision to close traffic lanes and tie up traffic.
With some of the state and nation’s best reporters — and large news organizations with extensive personnel and resources — aggressively pursuing the story, I have to believe that, if there is information implicating the governor in those documents, we would have seen it be now.
Meanwhile, the Assembly Transportation, Public Works and Independent Authorities Committee is subpoenaing more documents, the U.S. Attorney’s Office is launching an investigation and the media is not going to give up on this story for a long time, so there still are more potential minefields ahead for the governor.
But let’s look how this turns out if nothing changes: More documents are made public, but still there is nothing that directly links Christie to the decision to tie up traffic. Likewise, the U.S. Attorney’s Office also fails to find anything that would implicate the governor.
In this scenario, Christie emerges with the perfect talking point to use whenever he’s asked a bridgegate question:
“That issue has been dealt with. When I found out about it, I fired the people who were responsible, I apologized to the mayor of Fort Lee and I answered questions from the press for almost two hours. The U.S. Attorney’s Office conducted an extensive investigation and found I had no involvement. Next question.”
# # #
Lost among all of yesterday’s “bridgegate news” was the passing of poet and playwright Amiri Baraka. During the Trenton Book Fair in 2009, I had the opportunity to interview Baraka and lead a discussion about his life and work. Throughout his life, he was controversial and opinionated. He evoked strong emotions — both positive and negative — that made us think. May he rest in peace.
I was glad to see the classy manner with which Mitt Romney accepted Melissa Harris-Perry’s apology for remarks made on her MSNBC program about the former presidential candidate’s adopted African-American grandson. Hopefully, this puts an end to the incident because there are far more important issues on the national agenda for 2014.
Two quick observations from my years in politics and media:
Number one, the incident reminds us that all public figures, no matter how powerful or influential, are people just like the rest of us. They are mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and so on. Yes, they signed up for a life in a fishbowl, and they’re more thick-skinned than most of us. But they experience the same feelings and emotions as we do.
I once worked with a man who had been a speechwriter for a member of the Kennedy family. He told me he began to think differently about what he once thought were harmless Kennedy jokes when he realized they involved someone’s uncle or father.
Secondly, I feel a need to clarify a sentiment emerging from the controversy, namely that targeting families of public figures is off-limits. While spouses, children and siblings may not have chosen to enter the limelight, politicians often use their family members to create warm, fuzzy images. In my opinion, they can’t have things both ways. Politicians and other public figures who use their families to score points can’t cry foul when someone brings one of those family members into the public discourse.
# # #