Information, usually seen as the precondition of debate, is better understood as its by-product.
Christopher Lasch, historian
Tom Shales from the Washington Post has some interesting observations about the debate last night.
For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.
Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.
No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.
I suspect George is attempting to get into the Clinton's good graces, again.
2 comments:
Thankfully, I think people are also so sick of the media doing that they're no longer taking any notice. I hope so, anyway.
I am just happy the Dems are getting WAY more press than the Reps. That's a good sign, to me. Or maybe it's just the papers I read. ;-)
This is definitely an argument in favor of alternative media outlets such as commondreams.org , Pacifica radio stations, and Democracy Now.
Post a Comment