If you think that Big Brother is a reality show, just move on now.
However, for those of you who know 1984, check out the recently released attack ad against Hillary Clinton.
Here's the original Mac ad from over two decades ago:
Do we buy Hillary as Big Brother, the voice of 'mindless conformity'?
I don't.
Yet, is the ad effective? Has it, by now, already been seen by tens of millions of Americans? Even if they don't get the reference, mustn't we concede that they may perhaps be influenced by ads like this?
Yes.
The individual responsible for this ad has yet to come forward. How it can't be tracked, I don't know. I'd imagine the ties to Barack's campaign are closer than he'd like to let on - I hope not, but we'll see. It'll come out.
This is the future of attack ads - and, daisies aside (if you actually get the daisy reference, I admire you...most won't) the new attack ads are proving to be more captivating than ever.
We're in for one hell of an election season...
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
The woman we'll hate no matter what
Hillary Clinton is doomed...and it's all our fault.
Our country seems desperate not for strong leadership, but for more of the same - someone “just like us.” On March fourteenth, the New York Times published The Really Real Hillary, a piece in which guest columnist Judith Warner attempts to analyze Senator Clinton's perceived shortcomings as a woman and the uphill battle she faces in appealing to the American public.
Ms. Warner quotes Emily’s List president and founder Ellen Malcolm as saying that Hillary “will be a president of the United States who is like us,” a sentiment shared by literally tens of Americans. Though she attempts to skewer this notion, the fact that Ms. Warner and others continue to focus on likeability over competence only furthers to cement the likeability issue as one of prominent importance in the minds of American voters.
Listen up, people: you’re never going to have a Busch with Bush or a Corona with Clinton. Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama and John McCain have no idea who you are, and they never will. Get over it. We aren’t electing our new best friend, but rather the person who is most qualified to lead our great country for the next four years.
Senator Clinton will continue to take considerable heat for not being the 'everywoman' as long as Americans are threatened by her...in other words, permanently. Here is a woman who has achieved goals greater than most of us will ever reach, and that just doesn’t make us feel good about our own accomplishments. On some level, we don’t feel the need to 'compete' with John McCain or Barack Obama because there is still a lingering sentiment that some men are, if not predestined, at least hormonally equipped for extraordinary success. But how did Senator Clinton get to where she is now? Did she actually work harder than the rest of us? Did she sacrifice more? Is she - gasp - really smarter than we are?
It’s quite interesting to consider just how the Senator Clinton has been framed in the media. Like most Americans, I expected that a woman running for office would be subjected to criticism regarding her emotions: the old “she‘ll lose it once a month” crap. Uncontrolled emotions, though, aren’t something Senator Clinton is famous for (alleged lamp hurling aside…justified, if you ask me), and so our criticism must be redirected. We instead criticize her for being cold, heartless, and unable to connect with the soccer moms across the country. We say we want our nation’s president to be a strong, secure individual, yet it is those very things for which Senator Clinton comes under fire; I doubt that she’ll ever be able to live up to the image we project on her.
The issue of the double-bind isn’t new to Senator Clinton. In a 1995 interview with the Houston Chronicle, the then first lady admitted that she’d “come to accept the fact that it’s an inevitable double bind…no matter what I do…you’re bound to be criticized if you don’t fit some category, a stereotype that people wish to impose on you.” Sadly, twelve years later, she continues to struggle with the same problem. To be relatable, she must find the balance between being a woman and being a viable candidate for the highest office in the United States. In essence, she needs to appeal to a country of people who have already decided that they don't like her - personally.
The bottom line is that women who have achieved great success are held to a much higher level of personal accountability than are men with similar achievements. I really don’t know how Senator Clinton manages to keep it all in…I can only imagine the brief satisfaction that would be felt by yelling out, “You know what? I deserve what I’ve earned. I’ve worked harder, sacrificed more, achieved a level of greatness that most of you will never know…and guess what - I’m just plain smarter than you.” Luckily, Senator Clinton is far more restrained (and mature) than I.
In the end, smarts don’t seem to matter much when it comes to winning over the American public…maybe Hillary can have another cookie bakeoff instead. We’d eat that up.
Our country seems desperate not for strong leadership, but for more of the same - someone “just like us.” On March fourteenth, the New York Times published The Really Real Hillary, a piece in which guest columnist Judith Warner attempts to analyze Senator Clinton's perceived shortcomings as a woman and the uphill battle she faces in appealing to the American public.
Ms. Warner quotes Emily’s List president and founder Ellen Malcolm as saying that Hillary “will be a president of the United States who is like us,” a sentiment shared by literally tens of Americans. Though she attempts to skewer this notion, the fact that Ms. Warner and others continue to focus on likeability over competence only furthers to cement the likeability issue as one of prominent importance in the minds of American voters. Listen up, people: you’re never going to have a Busch with Bush or a Corona with Clinton. Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama and John McCain have no idea who you are, and they never will. Get over it. We aren’t electing our new best friend, but rather the person who is most qualified to lead our great country for the next four years.
Senator Clinton will continue to take considerable heat for not being the 'everywoman' as long as Americans are threatened by her...in other words, permanently. Here is a woman who has achieved goals greater than most of us will ever reach, and that just doesn’t make us feel good about our own accomplishments. On some level, we don’t feel the need to 'compete' with John McCain or Barack Obama because there is still a lingering sentiment that some men are, if not predestined, at least hormonally equipped for extraordinary success. But how did Senator Clinton get to where she is now? Did she actually work harder than the rest of us? Did she sacrifice more? Is she - gasp - really smarter than we are?
It’s quite interesting to consider just how the Senator Clinton has been framed in the media. Like most Americans, I expected that a woman running for office would be subjected to criticism regarding her emotions: the old “she‘ll lose it once a month” crap. Uncontrolled emotions, though, aren’t something Senator Clinton is famous for (alleged lamp hurling aside…justified, if you ask me), and so our criticism must be redirected. We instead criticize her for being cold, heartless, and unable to connect with the soccer moms across the country. We say we want our nation’s president to be a strong, secure individual, yet it is those very things for which Senator Clinton comes under fire; I doubt that she’ll ever be able to live up to the image we project on her.
The issue of the double-bind isn’t new to Senator Clinton. In a 1995 interview with the Houston Chronicle, the then first lady admitted that she’d “come to accept the fact that it’s an inevitable double bind…no matter what I do…you’re bound to be criticized if you don’t fit some category, a stereotype that people wish to impose on you.” Sadly, twelve years later, she continues to struggle with the same problem. To be relatable, she must find the balance between being a woman and being a viable candidate for the highest office in the United States. In essence, she needs to appeal to a country of people who have already decided that they don't like her - personally.
The bottom line is that women who have achieved great success are held to a much higher level of personal accountability than are men with similar achievements. I really don’t know how Senator Clinton manages to keep it all in…I can only imagine the brief satisfaction that would be felt by yelling out, “You know what? I deserve what I’ve earned. I’ve worked harder, sacrificed more, achieved a level of greatness that most of you will never know…and guess what - I’m just plain smarter than you.” Luckily, Senator Clinton is far more restrained (and mature) than I.
In the end, smarts don’t seem to matter much when it comes to winning over the American public…maybe Hillary can have another cookie bakeoff instead. We’d eat that up.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Cheney's Spirit of Strom Thurmond
Even death can't keep Strom Thurmond out of the news.
The former Republican Senator from South Carolina, a prominent opponent of desegregation and co-author of the Southern Manifesto, has been resurrected through reports detailing the shameful slave ownership of his ancestors.
While it's not news that the family once owned slaves, recent reports
tying a prominent African-American spiritual leader and social activist to the Thurmond family have given a face to what is terribly difficult for those of us never affected by the times to imagine. On February 25th, it was reported that Reverend Al Sharpton is a descendant of slaves owned by the Thurmond family, a revelation Reverend Sharpton referred to as “probably the most shocking thing in my life.”
Ahh, inequality in America. Due in part to Senator Barack Obama’s bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, the issue of race in America is clearly something we’ll be seeing more and more of in the months to come. In fact, even the accomplishments of Senator Obama are being overshadowed by a study indicating that his paternal ancestors were likely slave owners themselves. Receiving much less media attention is the fact that the same study also shows that Republican Senator John McCain and former Democratic Senator John Edwards, both 2008 Presidential hopefuls, are also descendants of slave owners.
Having owned slaves in any capacity is reprehensible; on this all civilized Americans will agree. Still, why the nearly exclusive focus on Senator Obama? The criticism leveled against Senator Obama is not only a smear campaign against an African-American who has an excellent shot of becoming America's first African-American president, but is also a way to lessen the guilt many whites feel about their own ancestral history. The fact that an African-American has ties not to slaves, but to slave owners, makes for a juicy soundbite. The “liberal media” needs to take a page from the Obama playbook and highlight the fact that while Obama’s paternal ancestors were far from perfect, they also broke the chain of racism in their own home, eventually raising a son who met, fell in love with and married a Kenyan student who would eventually go on to mother Senator Obama, a man who may well be President of the United States.
Any why, liberal media, with all the attention surrounding slave ownership, segregation and Strom Thurmond haven’t you been showing this picture?
That’s right, Vice President Dick Cheney chose to fly around the middle east in The Spirit of Strom Thurmond, a C-17 Globemaster that has been in use by the United States Air Force since 2002. How much common sense must one possess to demand, oh, I don't know - ANYTHING BUT THAT? I guess The Passion of James Earl Ray wasn't available.
Apparently Dick felt that The Spirit of Strom Thurmond would be less recognizable to terrorists than would Air Force Two. While this choice is clearly pathetic, it’s also unforgivable considering that this is the same politician who tries to convince the nation that any criticism of the ongoing war in Iraq “hurts our troops.” I’m supposed to believe that a man who would agree to fly in The Spirit of Strom Thurmond actually cares about the feelings of his fellow Americans? How must the thousands of African-Americans serving this country in Iraq feel about the fact that our nation’s second in command sees nothing wrong with flying in a plane named for a racist man who felt that blacks and whites were not to stand side by side?
What is wrong with our “liberal” media? A disgraceful action like this, had it been committed by a member of the Democratic party, would have been covered to no end in the form of talking points by every prominent pundit for the Republican party. Republicans are genius when it comes to talking points: they realize that you can’t get the base fired up over twelve different things every day, so they all work together, focusing entirely the same preselected points. This works not only to ensure that their issue-of-the-day will stay at the forefront, but also cements these preselected "outrages" in the minds of the Republican base. That kind of communication collaboration is brilliant, and speakers for the Democratic party would be well advised to get on board with the tactic.
The fact that Cheney sees nothing wrong with tooling around in The Spirit of Strom Thurmond further proves that there is no mainstream "liberal" media. Had Cheney actually thought otherwise, he never would have flown in a plane bearing such an offensive name. He was able to do so because he knew that his actions would receive minimal coverage from the mainstream media.
Democrats, it's up to us. We need to get on message - a shared message- and expose the current Republican leadership, and those who support it, as the pathetic, power-crazed egomaniacs that they are.
The former Republican Senator from South Carolina, a prominent opponent of desegregation and co-author of the Southern Manifesto, has been resurrected through reports detailing the shameful slave ownership of his ancestors.
While it's not news that the family once owned slaves, recent reports
tying a prominent African-American spiritual leader and social activist to the Thurmond family have given a face to what is terribly difficult for those of us never affected by the times to imagine. On February 25th, it was reported that Reverend Al Sharpton is a descendant of slaves owned by the Thurmond family, a revelation Reverend Sharpton referred to as “probably the most shocking thing in my life.”
Ahh, inequality in America. Due in part to Senator Barack Obama’s bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, the issue of race in America is clearly something we’ll be seeing more and more of in the months to come. In fact, even the accomplishments of Senator Obama are being overshadowed by a study indicating that his paternal ancestors were likely slave owners themselves. Receiving much less media attention is the fact that the same study also shows that Republican Senator John McCain and former Democratic Senator John Edwards, both 2008 Presidential hopefuls, are also descendants of slave owners.
Having owned slaves in any capacity is reprehensible; on this all civilized Americans will agree. Still, why the nearly exclusive focus on Senator Obama? The criticism leveled against Senator Obama is not only a smear campaign against an African-American who has an excellent shot of becoming America's first African-American president, but is also a way to lessen the guilt many whites feel about their own ancestral history. The fact that an African-American has ties not to slaves, but to slave owners, makes for a juicy soundbite. The “liberal media” needs to take a page from the Obama playbook and highlight the fact that while Obama’s paternal ancestors were far from perfect, they also broke the chain of racism in their own home, eventually raising a son who met, fell in love with and married a Kenyan student who would eventually go on to mother Senator Obama, a man who may well be President of the United States.
Any why, liberal media, with all the attention surrounding slave ownership, segregation and Strom Thurmond haven’t you been showing this picture?
That’s right, Vice President Dick Cheney chose to fly around the middle east in The Spirit of Strom Thurmond, a C-17 Globemaster that has been in use by the United States Air Force since 2002. How much common sense must one possess to demand, oh, I don't know - ANYTHING BUT THAT? I guess The Passion of James Earl Ray wasn't available.
Apparently Dick felt that The Spirit of Strom Thurmond would be less recognizable to terrorists than would Air Force Two. While this choice is clearly pathetic, it’s also unforgivable considering that this is the same politician who tries to convince the nation that any criticism of the ongoing war in Iraq “hurts our troops.” I’m supposed to believe that a man who would agree to fly in The Spirit of Strom Thurmond actually cares about the feelings of his fellow Americans? How must the thousands of African-Americans serving this country in Iraq feel about the fact that our nation’s second in command sees nothing wrong with flying in a plane named for a racist man who felt that blacks and whites were not to stand side by side?
What is wrong with our “liberal” media? A disgraceful action like this, had it been committed by a member of the Democratic party, would have been covered to no end in the form of talking points by every prominent pundit for the Republican party. Republicans are genius when it comes to talking points: they realize that you can’t get the base fired up over twelve different things every day, so they all work together, focusing entirely the same preselected points. This works not only to ensure that their issue-of-the-day will stay at the forefront, but also cements these preselected "outrages" in the minds of the Republican base. That kind of communication collaboration is brilliant, and speakers for the Democratic party would be well advised to get on board with the tactic.
The fact that Cheney sees nothing wrong with tooling around in The Spirit of Strom Thurmond further proves that there is no mainstream "liberal" media. Had Cheney actually thought otherwise, he never would have flown in a plane bearing such an offensive name. He was able to do so because he knew that his actions would receive minimal coverage from the mainstream media.
Democrats, it's up to us. We need to get on message - a shared message- and expose the current Republican leadership, and those who support it, as the pathetic, power-crazed egomaniacs that they are.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
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 preten
ding 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 fr
om 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.
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 preten
ding 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 fr
om 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
