One thing that bothers me about this election...

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 9/6/08 at 1:08pm

The hype around Obama has been building since the last DNC to such an extent that he may be one of the first "rock star" candidates, in my mind. In a way, the media sort of "chose" him and sort of implanted something within their coverage to make others vote for him as well. I don't know. Everyone is so easily swayed by the media and it's such a disturbing thought that it can now control elections.

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/6/08 at 1:21pm

Cruel makes a point?

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 9/6/08 at 1:48pm

Cruel, you could make the same point that the media kept Hillary Clinton in it for so long because of the ratings winning drama that characterized the race--or that the media has given John McCain essentially a free pass despite his complete reversals on many of the major issues he used to care about to get more in line with the Bush administration (and thus win their support and money), which has caused many Americans to develop a false image of the man--or that the media set expectations for Sarah Palin so low and hyped her up so much that her mediocre speech which contained no policy points made her an overnight rock star.

In terms of who the rock star is, well, Obama's been doing this for two years and won 18 million votes. Governor Palin's been doing this for... has it been a week yet?

The media is just trying to make a story and get the ratings. Learn to read between the lines. More people need to do that.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 9/6/08 at 1:52pm

Cruel, you should be bothered by that. The power and sense of entitlement of the press is completely out of control. I love how they're being snubbed by Palin. I wish all the candidates would do the same. It pisses them off, and for that alone, I like her.

[Yawper]

Posted: 9/6/08 at 1:56pm

Watch C-Span and go to the candidates' personal appearances if they come anywhere near you. Nothing beats first hand experience.

[javero]

Posted: 9/6/08 at 2:18pm

"The power and sense of entitlement of the press is completely out of control."

JohnBoy--

I agree almost completely with one minor deviation. It's the network and cable news outlets that have completely hijacked the electoral process at the national level. IMO this tyranny began during the Kennedy-Nixon contest which ushered in the era of televised political debates. Since then, it's been all "gotcha" questions from MSM journalists and playing up to the camera on the part of the candidates during televised debates or public addresses.

That's why I didn't watch coverage of the recent DNC at all and only McCain's speech from the RNC. Also, as a Libertarian I'm ticked off by the lack of coverage given to conventions of parties other than the duopoly.

Somehow the MSM has come to think of themselves as the legitimate fourth branch of government. That's why it amuses me when the bloggers break stories of national interest while the MSM plays hot potato.

At this point, I rely mainly on print media and Internet sources for news. The talking heads have ruined it for me otherwise.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 9/6/08 at 2:36pm

So if a candidate is really popular and generates huge crowds wherever he goes....what's the "media" supposed to report? I saw Obama at one of his first rallies after announcing he was running for the senate--- and it was like seeing U2, except there was a much larger, more excited crowd for Obama. Should they ignore that?

And as for being "Snubbed" by Palin- you ARE nuts. She has worked this media like crazy-from press releases saying her daughter is pregnant to a staged arrival of the unwed couple in Minneapolis. The one thing she won't do is answer questions. That's not "Snubbing" anything, it's just good politics, especially if you are utterly uninformed and the voters will let you get away with it.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 9/6/08 at 2:41pm

"Everyone is so easily swayed by the media and it's such a disturbing thought that it can now control elections."

Read the "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Kline.

Of course the media picked the candidates. As someone mentioned on here all have been darlings at some point. People like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were painted as charlatans despite having been the only ones with platforms MOST Americans desire.

That all said the thing you will see differently with democratic leadership is a return to oversight and balance in the media. The FCC will actually do its job and people will be protected from lies and bias.

Clearly our media is a for profit business. The old adage “if it bleeds it leads” will always stand, but at least you can believe what you read. Right now the only newspaper that actually does any REAL investigative journalism is the National Enquirer and that should tell you something. They are the only paper that seems to get their legal obligation to avoid libel and uphold some credibility.

If you want real news, I suggest the CBC out of Canada. I think it’s the best English news you can get on television. Also Bill Moyer on PBS is an American Hero.

Newspapers.. uh… I really don’t know any with credibility anymore. The New York Times and the WP have been called rags by both political parties and still haven’t retracted endorsements for the war. Democracy Now provides a wonderful radio show that still abides tried and true journalistic standards. Though as the name suggest they do cover mostly corruption in government. You can call that a slant...but it’s just a format.

Also Rachel Maddow who is coming to NBC on Monday has a wonderful “progressive” show which does lean left in it’s format, but provides only factual information. This versus Hannity and Colmes which presents lies and speculation as fact.




Updated On: 9/6/08 at 02:41 PM

[roquat]

Posted: 9/6/08 at 3:20pm

"The media" is such a tired whipping post for candidates who are miffed at unflattering coverage. With most major media outlets owned by conservative titans, the routine practice of blaming everything on the "liberal media" is getting OLD.

[javero]

Posted: 9/6/08 at 4:57pm

I still wouldn't dismiss JohnBoy's charges out of hand. What broadcast, cable and satellite TV do is create “overexposure” of the candidates. There's a reason that screen actors were reluctant to take on TV work in the not so distant past, apart from compensation. The visual trumps aural and print matter these days without fail.

It plays out in other fields as well such as the recording industry. Many of you will recall the advent of MTV with the song 'Video Killed the Radio Star' in heavy rotation.

The emphasis today on the part of the two major parties and visual media is on propping up candidates that are pretty, articulate, possessors of a killer narrative and up on the issues, in that order.

In short, TV and cable outlets have turned the quadrennial race to the White House into the Miss Political USA Pageant meets American Idol.

It amazes me how quickly the current one turned into a beauty contest between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. It's as if McCain and Biden were mere stage props.

I give mid-sized city and regional newspapers a pass because many have either been left on the vine to die or must join the stable of multimedia conglomerates to remain viable in the marketplace.

When the MSM cabal puts itself out as more than a for-profit business somehow distinct from Microsoft or even Broadway, I have to get out of the Matrix. Altruism and MSM are in no way synonymous.

Updated On: 9/6/08 at 04:57 PM

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 9/6/08 at 5:30pm

I just lump everyone (incorrectly so) into the word "press". Media is a better word. I'm old, so the use of the word "press" comes more naturally to me.