Hillary vs. Barack! That goes above the fold, right?

“Wait until you hear the red-hot remarks that set this grudge match in motion!”
Hey, Blitzer, that sounds bad! What’s the story?
Actually, not much. In announcing his support for Senator Barack Obama's bid for the White House, Hollywood music and movie mogul David Geffen leveled some criticism against Senator Hillary Clinton, the current frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. In an
interview with New York Times Op-Ed columnist Maureen Dowd, Geffen made some thoughtless, but accurate, comments about the New York Senator:
“I don’t think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is — and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? — can bring the country together.”
That bastard! He referred to Senator Clinton as polarizing, smart and ambitious?!? Wait a minute...I guess I don't really have an argument there. Like it or not, Senator Clinton is polarizing. People don’t like her for a myriad of reasons: her initial support for the war, the failed health care proposal under her husband‘s presidency, and her seeming inability to connect with mainstream America just to name a few. There are so many reasons people don’t care for Hillary that it isn’t even necessary to point out the two main factors: she’s a Clinton, and she’s female. The second "criticism", that Senator Clinton is ambitious, is also right on the money. My only problem here is the implicit notion that it’s unacceptable because she’s a woman. I mean, is she any more ambitious (or, shall we say, audacious) than a freshman senator who has decided that he's qualified to run for President of the Untied States? Obviously not.
So, Geffen no longer supports the Clinton dynasty and feels that Hillary herself is a polarizing, ambitious figure - he’s certainly not alone there. The comment wasn’t particularly well thought out, but it was (I assume) his honest opinion. Sadly, over the course of the day the media's framing of the issue shifted. It moved from the simple comments of a Hollywood fundraiser to an all out war between Senators Obama and Clinton. Correctly recognizing an opportunity to play the victim, Senator Clinton issued a statement calling on Senator Obama to “cut ties” with Geffen and return the $2300 personal donation he had made to Senator Obama’s campaign after today’s “vicious attack.” That overblown statement was jumped on by the major news networks, prompting an entire evening’s worth of coverage pitting the candidates against each other.
True, we live in a country where more people watched American Idol than the President’s State of the Union address, so maybe most of us shouldn’t exactly be expecting more. But, for those of us who do make the effort to stay informed, isn't it only reasonable that we can expect the information we’re offered on the news to be of a higher standard? Central to the day's coverage has been the news media's hypocritical calls on the candidates to act professionally and respectfully. CNN - I humbly request that you do the same.

Steve Doocy Hates America

Choose or Lose. Vote or DIE.

Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t help thinking that it’s a bit dangerous to coin catchy phrases for something as important as the presidential election. Low voter turnout isn't the problem -- the problem is our incredibly uninformed electorate. We know we should watch the news, or better yet, pick up a newspaper, and yet so many of us choose not to. Why?

It seems pretty obvious that, in the age of 24-hour coverage, the quality of what we’re fed has been reduced dramatically. The competition felt by networks, cable or otherwise, drives them to cover fluff just to keep us rooted to the couch. And if it’s not a teaser about Brangelina (What's Jen pissed about now!?! I have to know!), it’s fear, fear, fear. Have you ever paid attention to the CNN voice over that runs about eight thousand times a day? “Stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about your security.” Really? Day and night? If I turn it off, I won’t be safe? I mean, (GOB Bluth style), COME ON!!!

The news networks all rely on this kind of threat to ensure that we’ll keep watching, keep soaking it all in, without really learning anything…how can we get so little information from 24 hour news? Even when the programming attempts to be serious, the "experts" invited to participate can’t stop yelling at each other long enough to make an intelligent point about anything. And then there’s the permanent “talent.” Larry King, perhaps the most recognizable face on CNN, devotes entire hours to Miss USA or American Idol, certainly not prime time news worthy topics. And then there's Paula Zahn, a reactionary who manages to use the word “tolerance” about three hundred times per show while at the same time being rude to any guest who's on whatever side she’s currently pretending to be against. And don’t even get me started on the Fox News Channel. I mean, here’s a network where misinformation is news. Consider, for example, Fox and Friends co-host Steve Doocy’s gleeful squealing about the “report” that Barack Obama had attended a Madrassa when he was younger…too bad that report wasn’t true. Doocy later
"apologized" for his incompetance on air, noting that Obama’s camp denied reports that the presidential hopeful had ever attended a Madrassa. Doocy noted that he and the others at Fox and Friends felt the need to “[put] that out there.” Of course, the quiet apology won’t resonate in quite the same way as will Doocy's implicit suggestion that Obama has a background in Islamic extremism...but I'm sure that wasn't intentional. Sadly, the Fox network misinforms viewers on such a regular basis that this most recent "lapse in judgment" comes as no surprise.

Clearly I’m not the only American frustrated with what’s on the news these days. Less than ten percent of the American public watches any major network news broadcast, and even fewer watch pundits like Bill O’Reilly or Larry King. Sounds like that’s really not such a bad thing. Luckily, most major newspapers - including two of our nation's most respected publications, The Washington Post and The New York Times - offer the vast majority of their content online, free of charge. Good information is out there, but we as citizens have to make an effort to find it if we want to be active participants in the political world. Watching Larry King Live, The O’Reilly Factor or even (my favorite) The Daily Show doesn’t make you an informed citizen, and that’s not news.

There are, of course, exceptions to the rule. I get more substantive information from Jim Lehrer, who hosts The NewsHour on PBS, in one sitting that I could from CNN or FNC in an entire day…maybe because Mr. Lehrer can actually tolerate talking about an issue for more than thirty seconds. You know what's strange about Mr. Lehrer? He manages to get his point across without yelling…he doesn’t even resort to insulting his guests (and, ultimately, his viewing audience). He covers the most important issues of the day with dignity and intelligence. We could all use a little more Lehrer. He’s a strange man…I feel something for him. Respect? I think it just might be.