Wrestling With TV’s Dueling Political Titles : When is a party analyst a strategist? News shows should inform but often just feed the confusion by parroting campaign-speak.

They queue up for the camera, and the media queue up for them. But beyond constantly cluttering television and getting quoted during presidential campaigns, what exactly does a political party analyst do? A party strategist? A party consultant?

When Charles Black was on NBC’s “Today” program the other day, he was labeled “Senior Bush Strategist.” Given the incumbent’s standing in the polls, being advertised as President Bush’s top strategist could be the kiss of death. But is Black even that? On ABC recently, he bore the title “Senior Bush Adviser,” compared with the “Senior Bush/Quayle Issues Adviser” label applied to Jim Cicconi on a recent “MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour” on PBS.

But if Black is Bush’s chief strategist, then what is James A. Baker’s role as Bush’s campaign director? If he’s not directing strategy, then what is he directing? Traffic? A play?

And what does a strategist do that an adviser doesn’t, anyway? What does Bob Beckel--identified as a “Democratic Strategist” by “CBS This Morning”--do for Bill Clinton? And what do he and conservative journalist and professional TV pundit Fred Barnes--who appear as a battling duo on the network--do for CBS? Each is labeled a “CBS News Consultant.” Does CBS News consult with Beckel on Clinton’s strategy? Does CBS News consult with Barnes on John McLaughlin’s strategy?

Does Beckel huddle with Mandy Grunwald, billed as a “Democratic Strategist” by ABC recently, and with Robert Squier, who carries the title of “Democratic Strategist” in his appearances on “Today” with “Republican Strategist” Roger Ailes, who is also the producer of Rush Limbaugh’s television series? Does Ailes plot Bush’s strategy every morning with Black? Does Ailes owe his primary allegiance to Bush or to Limbaugh?

Then there’s Mary Matalin, characterized at various times on TV as “Bush Strategist” and “Bush Campaign Deputy Manager.” And is James Carville Clinton’s “Senior Strategist,” “Senior Adviser” or “Democratic Campaign Manager”? Take your pick.

And what about Ann Lewis, who must be exhausted from overwork? On CNN’s “Crier & Co.,” Lewis was named a “Democratic Strategist and Consultant.” Does she first consult and then strategize, or vice versa? What does a consultant do that a strategist doesn’t?

And what of Bay Buchanan, who ran this year’s presidential primary campaign by her brother, Pat Buchanan? On “Crier & Co.,” she was called a “Conservative Activist.” But when she appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” opposite “Democratic Analyst” Susan Estrich, Buchanan was labeled a “Republican Analyst.”

The question is whether Buchanan can separate her duties as an activist and analyst, and whether, as a conservative, she’s an analyst for all Republicans or just right-wing ones. And is Estrich an analyst--as opposed to a strategist or a consultant--for the Democratic Party? Or is she merely a Democrat who likes to analyze things?

And is Dan Rather just an anchor or a CBS News consultant himself? On “CBS This Morning” Friday, co-host Harry Smith consulted with Rather about the implications of Ross Perot’s re-entry into the presidential race.

Harry: “What is going to happen with these debates now that Ross Perot is involved?”

Dan: “It’s going to look like Wrestlemania.”

Harry (on Perot rejoining the campaign): “In the long term, isn’t that going to hurt the President?”

Dan (pausing to become deeply philosophical): “It can hurt the President. . . .”

Based on that exchange, you’d have to say Rather is not exactly a consultant for “CBS This Morning,” or even a strategist, even though he is point man in the network’s strategy to position him as the living, breathing, pontificating Book of Knowledge. No, in this instance Rather was definitely an analyst.

If so, where does this leave John Madden, who analyzes professional football for CBS Sports? Or my therapist, who analyzes me?

Or Perot, who is his own analyst, strategist, consultant and senior adviser.

Finally, what about the title that isn’t used, the title that best describes most of the political figures now flooding the airwaves on behalf of their candidates, the most valid title of all?

Party Hack.

TV’s playing of musical political titles merely feeds confusion. The bigger question is why most of these party hucksters--including GOP National Committee Chairman Richard Bond and his Democratic counterpart, Ron Brown--are granted air time in the first place, given the absolute predictability of their comments. Each spews the political language that Norman Solomon calls a “minefield of nuances and political agendas” in his campaign handbook, “The Power of Babble.”

Party loyalties do not necessarily preclude thoughtful political discourse. For example, designated Democrat Mark Shields and designated Republican David Gergen--both working journalists--on occasion rise above partisanship during their regular, highly civil chats about election politics on “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour.”

Yet they’re the exception. Bank on Black lauding Bush and excoriating Clinton. Depend on Clinton communications director George Stephanopoulos loving his candidate and slamming Bush. What else would they do? Nonetheless, NBC--seeking to hold viewers with conflict, no matter how empty or meaningless--has institutionalized Black vs. Stephanopoulos and Squier vs. Ailes as regular debates, as if these bickering pairs were Lincoln and Douglas and their superficial clashes on “Today” went beyond partisan blather.

The noise. The posturing. The wild swings. The fakery.

Wrestlemania.