On the Campaign Trail with the Candidates

Out of all the cable news channels, I would have to go with C-SPAN. I abhor Fox, and the others are too cookie-cutter and milquetoast. This one just runs footage straight through with no comment. If one is to pretend to be unbiased, this is about the only way to do it. Recently Jon Stewart confronted the hosts of Crossfire about their "debate" style--what I get from it is that to appear unbiased, networks feel that they must dish out their criticism entirely equally. Or they just don't at all. Aren't there some objective criticisms of the Bush administration that should be commonplace by now? On a program on Sundance channel called "Fahrenheit 9/11: A Movement in Time," Dan Rather discusses feeling as though his hands are tied in reporting on the current administration (the clip is from a panel of prominent network reporters). I've gotten this same impression watching Saturday Night Live the past few weeks. Do they feel they need to pretend to an unbiased presentation and give equal time out of obligation? The show is satire--not a news program. Notice the opening bit last night alone, in which Osama bin Ladin makes one critical remark against Kerry for every one against Bush. What if there isn't equal criticism to be distributed? This is the president in office during the most damaging attack on our soil, the highest deficit ever, the only tax cuts during war, the first war against the advice of the United Nations. Kerry is a decorated war hero with 20 years in senate who for one thing worked with John McCain on the POW issue in an example of looking beyond partisan politics. And why must SNL repeat the right-wing line that Michael Moore's material is not to be trusted? He has gone through pains to document his sources of information in "Stupid White Men," "Dude, Where's My Country?" and "The Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader." The right-wing has been successful in quashing such criticism merely by repeating such falsehoods enough so that many believe they are true. No one is unbiased. The only way one can get close is by just running film/video on events and saying nothing. (By the way, analysis of events is valuable as well, but it should be separate from the event itself. You could observe the opposite during Fox News' coverage of the Democratic National Convention, during which they showed a few seconds of a speech then proceeded to "spin" it.)
Yesterday I watched Bill Clinton and Teresa Heinz-Kerry in New Mexico and George H.W. Bush in Colorado on C-SPAN. Clinton focused on how one reason voters are wary of Kerry is because they are unsure about moving away from who's already handling defense. He proceeded to detail Kerry's policies for defense and point out that Bush has no such plans. I wish this message would get out more because I think it would make a difference for a lot of voters. Then Bush I spoke in Denver. It looked like someone had woken him for the event--I just couldn't help noticing his bed head and rambling speech. He mentioned that Hollywood would be supporting Kerry, and we were supposed to gasp there, as the planted crowd did. This common line is rife with hypocrisy. Does anyone doubt that they would use more celebrities if they could get them? Look at what Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger have done and continue to do for them. Is it preferable to have big business in one's pocket? Are celebrities not allowed to have some opinion on such matters? I know, a lot of right-wingers would say no. They also think that a lot of us are not qualified to have an opinion, but I am heartened by ads I've seen and heard telling voters that if they receive resistance in their attempts to vote, they should call a toll-free number. If we can get through the stifling of the media and voters themselves, this thing will be in the bag.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bible School Chronicles – Cleaning Up (Chapter 3)

My first job at the school was in its Physical Plant department. My first job overall was as a paperboy. I’ve nearly always held some sort of job—at most fast food restaurants you can name, with a disreputable operation to collect money for veterans, at a bucket factory, and in securing appointments for cemetery plot sales. I felt like something of a sucker as I observed some of the more well-off students who had never held a job. The student population was largely divided between children of the wealthy and those less well provided for. It was tuition-free but as such relied heavily on donations. Anyway, my deeply-established work ethic came to appear as more of a sham. I was told that you work hard to prepare yourself for adulthood and foster independence. For others, though, they focused on their academic lives until they graduated, perhaps took a brief detour, then entered the workforce in the capacity for which their education had prepared them. Through our way, we lost a...
Read more

Bible School Chronicles - Barista! (Chapter 4)

At some point during my formative years, I posited that being a clerk at a record store would be the best possible job. I never had luck securing such a position (now, record stores hardly exist), but I did procure an interview at a coffee shop. This was before Starbucks entirely monopolized this market. I applied and interviewed at a location just a block or two from my school (this was a small local chain). The manager, Sue, introduced herself. She had cuffed jeans, boots, and short hair, with a Clash pin on her bag. Through some small talk, I learned that she was in a band that was influenced by Gang of Four. She left me with a handout concerning how coffee is grown and prepared and told me to return for a quiz within a week. Upon being hired, I was told that I would also have to work at three other locations regularly. This was okay; I can’t say no to much anyway. All of my co-workers were of course very hip. Two of whom were also in Sue’s band, one with short pink hair (...
Read more

The Chronics

I will be glad when I am through II Chronicles. Such a considerable portion of what I've been going through lately has been recording history of wars and kings' rule. So many portions are phrased in exactly the same way. Most often, the record is that a particular leader did not please God, usually because he let idols to other gods stand and/or worshiped them himself. David is one of a handful of exceptions. He was a man of war, it to me he seems a womanizer, but many times he is depicted as trying to act rightly despite some of his subjects or those around him acting outside of God's will (through killing someone or trying to kill him). Something humorous that is repeated over and over is to the effect of, "As to the rest of King _____'s reign, is it not recorded in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel?" I respond to this immediately with, "I don't know," and then by wondering, what has become of this book? Was it decided that ...
Read more