« I Want To See the Movie | Main | Obama Video »
April 17, 2008
Responders
Mild-mannered guest blogger Michael Weiskopf turns into a liberal man of steel who jumps over tall issues when aroused by the evil media.
Neil Derrough battles him to a draw with the cold logic of a conservative who defends the media. Here is Derrough's response, followed by an impassioned comment on Wednesday's debate by Jesse Kornbluth, who seems to have captured the sense of most people who watched the debate. First, Derrough writes:
"Editorial judgment will always be second-guessed. It’s a part of journalism. It’s often difficult to explain why one story is covered and another one is not. In breaking news coverage it’s a relatively easy decision. It’s story selection in the so-called discretionary news category that causes much of the problem. Add to that the highly charged political atmosphere that is a part of covering a presidential race and you have the perfect environment for many of the news gathering conspiracy theories that plague us today. It’s with this backdrop that so much anxiety exists about news judgment.
As I see it, in the process of covering a presidential race one of the most critical things that must be explored is, who are these people running for the office? Some of this exploration is superficial or driven by political operatives. Cutting through what’s important and what’s not is the hard part. We must as consumers of this information decide how it will influence our opinion of the candidates. In that our opinion is laced with our own political leanings, objectivity is difficult.
After saying all that, I submit the Bosnia and “elitist” stories strike at the heart of who these candidates are. A case can be made that knowing as much as possible about the candidates in advance of the election may lead to a better understanding how the candidate would deal with the Geneva Convention issues mentioned. As imperfect as the process is, exploring the character, honesty and deep-rooted political beliefs of the candidates is one of the most important responsibilities of covering an election."
Kornbluth writes:
"I figured out what to do about ABC's shameful hosting of the Obama/Clinton debate.
I gave Barack $.
And , in the future, I'm going to TIME MY DONATIONS so I give THE DAY AFTER the MSM shits on him and us.
Money talks? I hope mine does."
The Media Curmudgeon followed Jesse Kornbluth's lead and gave the last few dollars left to max out my contributions to Obama.
And then Nick Kotz writes:
"As if to confirm your comments yesterday [on being sick of the campaign and its coverage and wanting to see the movie], read Rothschild of the Progressive today on last night's debate."
Keep stirring the pot, everyone!
Posted by Charles Warner at April 17, 2008 11:23 AM
Comments
Bruce Braun ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mediacurmudgeon.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 17, 2008 01:17 PM writes:
Let's get real. There is not one person running for president that isn't a phony and a liar.
Each of them is trying to portray themselves as being in touch with the lunch-box Joe's of this country. Hah!
Do people with degrees from Ivy League Schools and the Naval Academy hang with community college types? Do people who knock down multi-million dollar annual incomes, travel by private or chartered jets, ride in limos, stay in luxury hotel suites, eat in the finest of restaurants, privately socialize with the mega-rich and mega-famous, have scores of assistants and support people have any conception of reality? Sure, they all came from somewhere that was not privileged to a large degree, but those experiences are just a fond memory and not a current reality.
How much cash do any of the candidates carry in their wallets? Do they even carry a wallet? When was the last time they paid for a meal with a personal credit card, gassed their car, bought groceries or wrote a personal check?
Spare us the bullshit about relating to the middle class...or any class other than the power class.
Sure, running for president isolates the leading candidates from the public to a degree. These folks have been living the good life from the first day they became a senator.
Bogus family recipes, drinking shots, attending churches pastored by whack jobs and never hearing the goofy sermons, shooting guns, dodging non-existent sniper fire....PLEASE!!! Are we all that naive or stupid to buy into the lame stories and ridiculous explanations? Or worse, excuse that behavior because the candidate is the one we are supporting?
These people are career politicians. Telling lies is second nature to them. Yet the press and the supporters of each candidate all delude themselves with even lamer rationalizations. Telling a lie is now referred to as: Misspoke, taken out of context, exaggerated, embellished or misquoted or my personal favorite: I was exhausted and confused about what I said....even though I said it five times earlier the same day in my stump speech.
These misstatements are LIES! Let's call them what they really are.
Where else but in this country can you be elected to represent your state, collect your paycheck every month and then go AWOL from your job for 18-24 months while you pitch what you hope will be your next big job? How about some new rules for those aspiring to higher political office? If you want to run for higher office, you have to resign from your current political office. No more job hunting on the taxpayer dime!
Jesse Kornbluth at April 17, 2008 11:56 AM writes:
Mr. Derrough seems to be a voter/commentator whose primary interest is character.
Perfectly valid.
We shall soon see if the MSM is as interested in probing John McCain's character as it is his Democratic rivals.
Or, for that matter, what he actually holds as positions.
It might be a fun exercise for readers of this blog to frame some questions the MSM might profitably ask.
Here's one for starters: You unequivocally oppose torture, yet you have not spoken against the recent revelations that the senior staff of the Administration plotted specific acts of torture --- and the President approved it. What is your real position?
You say you value habeas corpus. Yet you voted for the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which guts it for American citizens. What is your real position?
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)Printer-Friendly