When the two meet…

I found an article on the TPM that links to an article in Newsweek, which is the other media outlet I am covering. The article was about the McCain’s campaign manager taking monthly payments of 15,000 dollars from Freddie Mac since 2006. I thought the article was very well written and reported important information about McCain’s campaign manager. After the attacks Obama received the revealing of his having ties to two former Fannie Mae executives it is refreshing to see the media call out McCain on his connections to Freddie Mac. I’m happy to see journalists at a mainstream medium such as Newsweek doing their job and having independent journalists such as Marshall at TPM further spreading the information. I think this is how it’s suppose to work. 

I understand that advertisements do not necessarily tell the truth because there is obviously a biased and manipulation in order to get the audience to do something, but blatantly lying to people is not right. I just don’t understand how the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth can blatantly lie without having anybody put them in check. I love the big wig’s of media placing the blame on the imaginary hand that controls the media, like they don’t accept the contracts to run these ads and how frequently. I’m not saying that they have to examine every single smear campaign or stop running ads from candidates, but if they actually did their job and reported on the issues and the candidates credentials instead of predicting the horserace then they wouldn’t have to worry about it.

The talking points memo piece was interesting. I think that it is sad that people have to resort to spreading lies about the other party’s candidates rather than spreading the truth about the candidate that they are endorsing. It doesn’t say much about the state of American politics today.

 

The salon article raises the question what exactly is fair and balanced reporting when it comes to politics? Greenwald states that the writers of the Washington Post believe that each side should be allowed to say whatever they want and if the paper gives the other side a chance to defend themselves or deny the allegations then the paper has effectively worked on setting the record straight. It is apparent that Greenwald is outraged by this type of thinking. He believes a reporter has the right to report the facts and identify the false statements as false. I completely agree with Greenwald, however the problem calling out the falsehoods would actually mean calling each side a complete liar from time to time. How do you call someone who is providing a billion dollars worth of advertising a liar? 

Does anybody know what is actually going on?

I think part of the reason this bailout situation is so complicated it because the major media outlets have failed to explain what it means for the American people. Take this article in the Washington Post for example that I found linked on talking Points Memo :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/26/AR2008092603957_pf.html

The majority of the article discusses whether or not the bill will pass and what McCain did to disagree with the base of his party. Honestly the article did nothing to clear up the little information I had about the bailout plan, which I believe is basically about the fact that the government is trying to buy up some bad debt that the private banks and mortgage firms acquired. For a controversial piece of pending legislation, there has to be a lot more facts to it. Why would anybody care who in congress is voting for it when the vast majority of Americans don’t understand the actual implications. I think the major media outlets have done a poor job of disseminating this information for the public.

I thought the article by David Brooks was very interesting and informative. I like how he mentioned that only 45% of funding is from donations of less than $200. Although he mentions how Obama made the claim that 90% of his campaign was financed by small donors, I still think 45% is a pretty impressive amount.

 

The groups that donated we what would be streo-typical of party lines. The educated professionals still tend to donate and vote Democrat while the Corporate mangers tend to vote and give Republican. Surprise, Surprise!

 

The article on McCain’s energy record made him look like a typical politician. Saying one thing in front of the big corporate leaders and another thing in front of your average Joe farmer. Although I think it is absolutely necessary to report on what the candidates actual voting record is, and I commend Levey for doing so, I think that she should explain a little bit more about what the bill was that he actually voted on.

 

I understand the purpose of the article; to report that McCain is not consistent when voting on energy issues. I just wish there was a website where each candidate would explain why he voted the way he did. Some place where the candidate could be like well, I had to vote against this because I spoke with members XYZ who agreed to vote with me on another bill if I voted with them on this issue. Or I was facing tremendous pressure to vote along party lines. These aren’t necessarily good reasons but it does happen time to time in Washington. I think a candidate with a “flip flop” voting record should be questioned I just think they should be given the opportunity to explain why they voted that way.

 

Although I was surprised to see a Wikipedia link , I really appreciated  the October Surprise. I had never heard the term before and really enjoyed the past examples of October Surprises. It is sad though that candidates waste so much money campaigning two years in advance, when an event occurring right before the election in October can have much more of a significant effect.

 

I really enjoyed the article in the museum of broadcast communications. I think this definitely reinstates what I wrote earlier about turning the election into more of a beauty competition. I have heard people makes claims that Kennedy won the debate because he looked so much better than who he was standing next too. On the other hand I think giving Americans the opportunity to actually see the candidate for him or herself is more meaningful then reading someone’s interpretation of the debates the next day. For better or worst televised debates definitely altered the way Americans view the presidential election.

 

I think it’s funny that people are more or less surprised when a presidential candidate does something like look down at his watch, sighs loudly or sweats during a debate. I think the American public is surprised to see that the candidates are not necessarily great debaters. Unfortunately, I think that is the nature of politics today. Gone are the days of presidents who actually write their own speeches and have to impress a crowd with their ability to debate their point of view. 

The article by Glenn Greenwald made running for election seem like a beauty pageant. My favorite line was, “They thus resolved to shift the playing field away from issues to manipulative, adolescent questions of patriotism, manliness, and personal likability.” Apparently the it is not about voting for who would be the best man for the job as much as it is about who looks like the right man for the job.  Although I agree with Greenwald I think he places the blame almost entirely on the right-wing which isn’t fair.  Everyone knows that the journalists both liberals and conservatives are guilty of playing into the “electability” reporting instead of focusing on the “real issues.” In all honestly I think to the average person a two party political system is more or less a joke. I think the average person is conservative on some issues and liberal on others I find it hard to believe that most people believe in every item on one party’s platform, which is why I think it is ridiculous to hold one party entirely accountable for the problems with reporting an election.

 

I thought Foster’s article was really interesting about how Nixon helped make a book exposing the “liberal Bias” of the media go to the top of the Best-selling charts. I didn’t even know that such a book existed but it now I know why my father goes around stating his belief that the “media is just a bunch of liberals.” It just amazes me that a book like that could make reports so afraid of being called bias that they neglect to do their job.

 

I feel the Bozell article was appropriate attacking the liberals given the prior article by Greenwald we read attacking the conservatives. Still I just don’t see the purpose of each side pointing the finger at the other whining about how the other team is unfairly smearing their name. Boo Hoo! I just want to be like get over it. I think it is inevitable that both parties are going to make ridiculous smears against each other so rather than whine about it, why not just get a good laugh out of it. Yes Obama will teach kindergarteners about sex while McCain gets rid of every single form of contraceptive. Of course this will happen right after the one who gets elected flies to his inaugural speech on a pink unicorn. I mean, come on!

 

Tonight was the Independent Media symposium with Josh Marshall.  I like the quote he opened up with about “Going to where the silence is and saying something.” I think at the essence of journalism is exactly that; Giving a voice to the voiceless. I believe independent media is sometimes much more capable of doing this than main-stream media since there are far fewer gatekeepers (if any) blocking the flow of information.

 

I think it interesting that a relatively small organization could break the news on an important story, but once news is picked up by a major organization the smaller organization loses the story because they often don’t have the resources to put into further coverage of the subject. This is just one of the negative aspects about working for an independent media organization.  However, I would like to intern for an independent media outlet at least once before graduation.

 

I thought the Q&A was interesting, but of course this is Ithaca and I felt that some people went up there more or less to give their opinion than ask a real question. What was with the question about If his Blog could have changed the results of the last election if it had been as popular as it is now? How was he suppose to answer that? I also didn’t get why the women at the end asked about his demographic audience? Of course, the people who typically read TPM are going to be educated people like-minded to Marshall. People usually seek out the opinions of those who they believe are similar to themselves.

 

I think perhaps the most inspiring part of the presentation was the fact that the “blogger in pajamas” was able to make a decent living off the advertisements on his blog. I know making a decent living from a blog is much more difficult than he made it seem. Still it was inspiring entertaining the thought that it could happen.