The mainstream media has long been criticized for glossing over issues that require depth and understanding.
They deserve the criticism, and then some.
In last night’s democratic debate in Cleveland, Ohio both candidates regurgitated the same messages, the same political jargon, the same bulls*** they’ve been saying their entire campaign.
Doesn’t the discussion, between two supposed great minds, have to progress at some point? Shouldn’t they be forced to cover more details, more specifics, less slogans?
Not according to the supposed great journalists of our time. Tim Russert and Brian Williams have achieved the apex for journalists in our society: they have their own TV shows!
Yet the two simply regurgitated every hot topic the mainstream press was talking about that day. After reading a few debate preview articles I knew every question that was going to be asked and every answer that was going to be given.
I didn’t know Hillary was upset she kept getting the first question from the moderators, quite an exhilarating surprise.
It’s the job of Russert and Williams to escalate the debate. The candidates are perfectly happy to read from their staff-prepared script. This strategy will work until journalists start asking the tough questions. If Russert and Williams won’t do it, who the hell will?
For example, Hillary and Obama started the debate arguing about healthcare reform for over ten minutes straight. They interrupted the moderator’s continuous attempts to change the subject and forged ahead. Good for them. Both quasi-journalists seemed perturbed about this and anxious to regain control of their show.
It’s not their show, it’s our effing show, let them speak!
Instead of asking the next logical question – something like “Okay, both of you want to provide coverage for as many Americans as possible but how are you going to pay for it, how are you going to make the doctors in the O.R. happy and the greedy pharmaceutical companies happy at the same time? - Williams said something coy and TV anchorish, then ripped a headline out of the morning newspaper to change the subject.
Why can’t debates focus on one single issue? Are the networks afraid of educating the public to the point where we fully understand the issues? I don’t think so.
I think if the candidates debated at length, and provided depth and comprehension for the American people, (which I believe they’re capable of doing) we wouldn’t need to listen to the real attention whores like Russert and Williams to shape our opinions.
These a**holes are perpetuating the dumbing down of American politics. But they’re on TV, so unless they call Michelle Obama a nappy headed ho, we’re stuck with them for a long, long time.
Anchorman Sucks
|
Posted By: R. D. Briceland Posted on: Feb. 27, 2008 at 10:11 AM |
5.0 / 5
Based on 1 ratings.
|
*This article was filtered, login or change your preferences to remove language filter.
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Feb. 27, 2008 at 05:48:17 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
|
I am a filthy spammer, I deserve to be castrated in front of a live televised audience... Thanks for listening to me.
|
||
|
Feb. 27, 2008 at 06:40:46 PM
|
||
| Actually, LOGO did the Gay debate, as a single issue debate. I'd love to see an open forum style debate for the general on the economy, and have Gwen Ifill ask McCain would he support Bush and Greenspan's anti regulation policies, even if they continue to destroy the American Banking system? PS, anyone wanting to make a nice investment, WAMU is the next bank that the smart money is saying may go bye bye. |
||
|
Feb. 27, 2008 at 06:47:00 PM
|
||
| Hey! I liked that movie. Oh wait.... |
||
|
Apr. 17, 2008 at 07:56:17 AM
|
||
| The debate last night was mired in tabloid-esque journalism that once again assumed the American people are morons. This post on Daily Kos does a good job summing up the end of media competency. [link:www.dailykos.com] A couple points: 1. At first I was upset I missed the first hour of the debate because I thought Obama's speech on race, new developments in Iraq and the looming economic crisis would be covered. Instead I missed the "Inside Edition" part where Barack and Hillary were forced to answer the juicy gossip about bitterness and sniper fire. 2.) Why do moderators keep demanding that candidates make absolute statements on issues that could change in the future? "Do you swear never to raise taxes?" How the hell can anyone swear not do something when so many factors could make them do otherwise? I don't want them to raise taxes on the middle class but maybe raising taxes to pay for this "War on Terror" will really gauge how badly we want to "fight them over there." 3.) Charlie Gibson: "You've got about a minute to answer this question before we run out of time. What are you going to do about Iraq?" Are you f***ing kidding me? |
||
|
Apr. 17, 2008 at 08:04:06 AM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by R. D. Briceland on Apr. 17, 2008 at 07:56:17 AM]
R. D. Briceland
Apr. 17, 2008 at 07:56:17 AM The debate last night was mired in tabloid-esque journalism that once again assumed the American people are morons. This post on Daily Kos does a good job summing up the end of media competency. A couple points: 1. At first I was upset I missed the... View this Comment That "debate" was a TRAVESTY!!!! I listened to the first 30 minutes on the radio while driving home from work. What a joke. Didn't even bother to watch the entire thing on the TV later. |
||
|
Apr. 17, 2008 at 02:27:08 PM
|
||
| Because I am an Independent and haven't made up my mind 100% I decided to watch the debate last night to see how Hillary and Obama would answer when confronted with some of the controversial issues. (I have watched most of the debates) Hillary pounced on Obama for the first time about his associations with: Louis Farrakhan Rev. Wright William Ayers He did not denounce his association with them, which disappointed me. He didn't answer why he doesn't put hand over heart during the pledge, or why he doesn't wear the flag pin.What I heard were excuses and changing the subject. I still think he has a disgruntled wife who is not proud of her country. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I just don't trust his motives and I believe he has a hidden agenda. He didn't give straight or direct answers, he fumbled with his words, didn't do well speaking, he doesn't do well without a teleprompter. He hasn't changed my mind about him. I was impressed by Hillary Clinton. She answered all the questions by giving direct answers and did admit she misspoke and admitted she was wrong. I respect her for that, and see her in a different light. I agreed with some things and disagreed on somethings. As an Independent, I definitely will not be voting for Obama. Hillary? maybe. I will need to hear more of what McCain has to say and who he selects for VP. JUST MY 2 CENTS |
||
|
Apr. 17, 2008 at 03:49:28 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by My 2 cents on Apr. 17, 2008 at 02:27:08 PM]
My 2 cents
Apr. 17, 2008 at 02:27:08 PM Because I am an Independent and haven't made up my mind 100% I decided to watch the debate last night to see how Hillary and Obama would answer when confronted with some of the controversial issues. (I have watched most of the debates) Hillary... View this Comment C'mon, you're giving "Independents" a bad name. Controversial issues? You could've found out exactly what their answers were going to be by picking up a newspaper in the last month. (Obama has black friends, Hillary lies, shocking!) If you think those questions deserved more time than the War, the economy, health care and the international food shortage you must really be excited to vote someone off American Idol next week. Hey, do you think Britney can make a comeback? Independently, do you believe Rob Lowe, or his nanny? |
||
|
Apr. 17, 2008 at 03:54:35 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by R. D. Briceland on Apr. 17, 2008 at 03:49:28 PM]
R. D. Briceland
Apr. 17, 2008 at 03:49:28 PM C'mon, you're giving a bad name. Controversial issues? You could've found out exactly what their answers were going to be by picking up a newspaper in the last month. (Obama has black friends, Hillary lies, shocking!) If you think those... View this Comment I actually agree the Barackstar didn't speak very well last night. Maybe he was thinking about his rising poll numbers in Pennsylvania too much. |
||
|
Apr. 17, 2008 at 04:17:33 PM
|
||
| R.D. We have a very unfortunate population in the Country. The moderators are forced to bring these issues up as they are, as I say again, unfortunately on the minds of the voters! I agree that there are more important issues that need to be addressed, but it is not what the majority of the people want to hear about. Our society has become so addicted to tabloid journalism that it seems to have infiltrated our political system when it really shouldn't. I watched some of the debate, but I was getting upset with the side stepping that was going on. I thought Hillary did do a better job and was amazed at Obama's stuttering and loss of words. Maybe the teleprompter is really his friend. I also see today that Charlie and George got some grief for asking "tough" questions. In the frame work of what they had to work with, I thought that they did a good job! They did ask the tough questions that should have been asked for a little while. I had no problems with what they did. I just wish that they would have asked better topics. |
||







del.icio.us
Digg It!


I agree on this point totally!!! The media machine has taken on a role like I have never seen before. They have thrown out so many softballs that it is insane. Through all of the debates that I have seen, I have not seen one of the moderators really burrow down into these folks and make them answer a question. The only one that "attempted" it was Charlie Gibson from ABC, but that was no where close to where it should have been.
It is more and more obvious that the media now has an agenda and it will not change anytime soon unfortunately. With media consolidation, we no longer have true journalists...we have talking heads that are trying to get the most ratings possible instead of getting to the bottom of the story.
I, like you, wish that we had a system where a great debate would occur and the candidates would be able to really hash out the details of their plans. I would love that! But, I suppose that would not make for great ratings.
Report Abuse