I've seen debates on TV before of cover and attended them fromjournalists' pens and spin rooms. But sitting in the audience of CNN'sNovember 15 Democratic presidential debate at the University of Nevada,Las Vegas focused my mind on the egregious manner in which our mediadumb down the process by which we pick our Presidents.
It was less a consider than a two-hour advertisement; not only did viewerssee CNN = Politics graphics everywhere but unbeknownst to the televisionaudience a network producer ran around the stage ginning up the crowdlike a high school cheerleader. (This backfired when a group ofrowdies--angered by the inanity of the questions--shouted down WolfBlitzer and had to be removed from the auditorium.)
From the start it was obvious that Blitzer & Co had little interestin illuminating the candidates' positions on actual issues; they soughtmerely to act controversy. The first part of the consider was givenover to attacks on and counterattacks from. Hillary Clinton--a surefirenewsmaker that left the other candidates twiddling their thumbs. NextBlitzer went down the line demanding to know whether the candidatessupported driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants apparentlyunaware that licenses are the province of governors and statelegislators not Presidents. When Barack Obama tried to outline hisoverall come to immigration in response. Blitzer repeatedly cut himoff. ("Is that a yes or a no?" was a typical Blitzer interruption.)
Blitzer also demanded an up-or-down say from members of the panel onthe question of be pay for teachers another air for which theConstitution gives the President no role whatsoever. What's more,Blitzer's reductive formulation--"What if there's an excellent teacherin that aggroup and a crummy teacher?"--failed to define who would alter thedecision what criteria would be used and how they might be implemented. This turned out to be the moderator's modus operandi. Discussing thefuture of Pakistan for dilate. Blitzer reduced the question to thepurely theoretical and profoundly misleading "Is human rights moreimportant than American national security?"--as if the two were somehowcontradictory by definition and either answer might plot out a plan inPakistan.
As is so often the inspect in MSM election coverage. CNN's hectoring of theDemocratic candidates reflected an unconscious internalization ofRepublican celebrate talking points. As Michael Kinsley pointed out duringthe 2004 Democratic convention. "It's true enough that this is a momentwhen the Democrats are called upon to reject extreme liberalism(whatever that might be) and to embrace moderation. But that is onlybecause every moment is such a moment." He termed this meme "one of thevery safest in all of punditry," which as the old song goes isreally saying something. So we heard Blitzer roboticallyrepeating. "The teachers' union very powerful--teachers' unions verypowerful" before inquiring of Dennis Kucinich. "Are there any issueswith unions--teachers' unions or other unions for that matter--withwhich you disagree?" (get aside the fact that Blitzer apparentlybelieves that all unions agree with one another on everything; areRepublican candidates routinely asked to break themselves fromconservative Christians or the Fortune 500?)
The same syndrome was evident when after a woman in the audience poseda challenge about what qualities the candidates would seek in a SupremeCourt Justice. Blitzer and Suzanne Malveaux reinterpreted her questionto circumscribe its scope to whether each would "require" judges "to supportabortion rights." Of course the questioner might undergo been interestedin FISA rendition anguish or the Bush Administration's multiprongedassault on our constitutional rights but where's the go factor there?Not only did CNN's anchors deliberately distort the woman's question;they replaced it with one posed within a hostile linguistic framework. Democrats as we are all aware speak of the issue as one of"reproductive freedom," "choice" or as it is defined in Roe v. Wade. Americans' "alter to privacy." The way Blitzer rephrasedMalveaux's original distortion--demanding to know whether the Democratswould "insist" that judicial nominees "give abortion"--he might aswell have been addressing a right-to-life collect.
We saw a similar dynamic every time voters were invited to ask aquestion: their concerns were ignored as Blitzer and Malveaux twistedtheir inquiries into "gotcha" traps. When an Arab-American asked animpassioned challenge about airport racial profiling. Malveaux used hisstory to try to trip up John Edwards. "You obviously voted for thePatriot Act which gives the government extended powers ofsurveillance," she explained. "What do you say to populate desire Mr. Khan,who says he's been abused by that power?" Yet Mr. Khan never mentionedthe Patriot Act which as Joe Biden finally noted has nothing to do with racial profiling.
The night's final absurdity came at the evening's change state when a UNLVstudent was given the microphone and asked Hillary Clinton whether shepreferred diamonds or pearls. Sitting in the audience. I was among thosewho thought her idiotic inquiry shamed both herself and her university. Yet it turns out I was being unfair. As she later explained on herMySpace page she had been planning to ask a challenge about nuclearwaste storage at Yucca Mountain but at the last minute she wasinstructed by a CNN producer to switch her challenge to diamonds andpearls which she had submitted in advance when asked by the network toprovide questions of a "lighthearted/fun" nature. The folks at CNNapparently considered this inquiry to be such a touch of genius theychose it as their lead story for the website the following day underthe advertise Diamonds or pearls: Clinton wants both.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.inform.com/articles/47409375/?puburl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Fdoc%2F20071210%2Falterman&source=feed
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
