MEDIA MASSAGERS
Nader and Bush: What a contrast. Nader packed with issues. Bush packed with clarity. Both can serve a beneficial purpose. Clarity in a debate. Nader has too many to be clear. But I concur with three. The parties, the media and the money are too big a factor in our democracy.
Bush? Well, clarity. The one pol who hated polls as well as government starts his campaign by using both to wedge his way into the topic of marriage or gays. The one who talks about others rewriting history, now wages a battle for clarity or the dictionary. What about giving some clarity on states rights and/or religious freedom. The New York Times has to clarify. “Putting Bias in the Constitution.” http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022604C.shtml
The benefit of both these controversial figures is to bring issues to the forefront for debate. Now who will have the guts to face the issues with clarity in debates? That aside who needs the media?
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Monday, February 23, 2004
BAD WITH NUMBERS[Written around Feb. 18th, 2004]
So now I am a Dean delegate with no candidate. I missed my chance early on, to follow through on a thought to open a domain name: Uncommitted.com or dot-org.
NPR or another outlet reports that Kerry needs to lose 60% of the remaining delegates to lose the nomination. My first thought is why don’t they say that he needs 40% of the remaining delegates to keep the nomination?
As I write this it becomes clearer even now, that the trend is set for him to be the next fall guy. Will that leave Edwards the next and final shoe-in or result in a contentious National Convention. As the trend has gone so far the media ball is already rolling if you will note that Kerry only got 39% in Wisconsin. I thought the administration was bad with numbers, now we know how they can get away with it.
So now I am a Dean delegate with no candidate. I missed my chance early on, to follow through on a thought to open a domain name: Uncommitted.com or dot-org.
NPR or another outlet reports that Kerry needs to lose 60% of the remaining delegates to lose the nomination. My first thought is why don’t they say that he needs 40% of the remaining delegates to keep the nomination?
As I write this it becomes clearer even now, that the trend is set for him to be the next fall guy. Will that leave Edwards the next and final shoe-in or result in a contentious National Convention. As the trend has gone so far the media ball is already rolling if you will note that Kerry only got 39% in Wisconsin. I thought the administration was bad with numbers, now we know how they can get away with it.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Elephant Expectations?
Thomas Friedman’s “The global debate returns to Earth” ends in a great joke that I had already jumped to, in a way. First I had the final two paragraphs to absorb as I was made aware of “teeth-gnashing” at the thought that of course what goes up, must come down, so to speak. He had talked about elephants flying at the Davos World Economic Forum last year and landing with a thud this year. It made me think of the high-wire balancing act he was doing just to walk the line with the 3 issues: the US thinking it could go it alone in Iraq, the opponents to that strategy trying to dominate in their own way, and globalization.
I will leave their analysis to those who want to follow up on the original, but just because they have landed with a thud does not mean they will rise before they sink further. It may seem that someone is not fence sitting, but the elephants may have only hit the wire. A very similar punch line. And if the image of balancing the concept of support is not clear, maybe just this sound-bite will do: It’s the world economy stupid.
To go further, just because what goes up, may come down, does not mean we may not still have to go to hell and back first.
Thomas Friedman’s “The global debate returns to Earth” ends in a great joke that I had already jumped to, in a way. First I had the final two paragraphs to absorb as I was made aware of “teeth-gnashing” at the thought that of course what goes up, must come down, so to speak. He had talked about elephants flying at the Davos World Economic Forum last year and landing with a thud this year. It made me think of the high-wire balancing act he was doing just to walk the line with the 3 issues: the US thinking it could go it alone in Iraq, the opponents to that strategy trying to dominate in their own way, and globalization.
I will leave their analysis to those who want to follow up on the original, but just because they have landed with a thud does not mean they will rise before they sink further. It may seem that someone is not fence sitting, but the elephants may have only hit the wire. A very similar punch line. And if the image of balancing the concept of support is not clear, maybe just this sound-bite will do: It’s the world economy stupid.
To go further, just because what goes up, may come down, does not mean we may not still have to go to hell and back first.
Funneling Crisis?
William Safire’s “political analysis” or channeling of Richard Nixon from purgatory is scary. It is refreshing he (Nixon) refers to “electablity” as an issue emanating from the “jackasses yakkin’ it up on cable”. Electability is no more a real issue than the “gravitas” he supplants it with.
Given the influence of the media and polls, the impact of Dean’s scream was more a funnel on these secondary issues than an issue or filtered perspective. The record low number of Bush press conferences should be more an issue. It may be an accurate charge that the media is a subjective filter but that is as elusive as intelligence analysis or polling.
Hopefully the electorate, the people, can be their own filter and resist the final charge, when Safire again draws his channeled Nixon back to the question of issues in the campaign and we get the disturbing Quemoy-Matsu syndrome or “October surprise”. The conclusion that “most crises help incumbents” must be turned around given the track record of this administration. From their ample experience at failures they should be making some progress in avoiding them in the first place.
The ability to handle surprises may be a valid tool for analysis of an administration or candidate. But the incumbent should get no more credit for the opportunity to face a crisis than blame for having it to face. The occurrence or lack of a late crisis should not be another filter clouding issues or the clogging the filter of the electorate.
William Safire’s “political analysis” or channeling of Richard Nixon from purgatory is scary. It is refreshing he (Nixon) refers to “electablity” as an issue emanating from the “jackasses yakkin’ it up on cable”. Electability is no more a real issue than the “gravitas” he supplants it with.
Given the influence of the media and polls, the impact of Dean’s scream was more a funnel on these secondary issues than an issue or filtered perspective. The record low number of Bush press conferences should be more an issue. It may be an accurate charge that the media is a subjective filter but that is as elusive as intelligence analysis or polling.
Hopefully the electorate, the people, can be their own filter and resist the final charge, when Safire again draws his channeled Nixon back to the question of issues in the campaign and we get the disturbing Quemoy-Matsu syndrome or “October surprise”. The conclusion that “most crises help incumbents” must be turned around given the track record of this administration. From their ample experience at failures they should be making some progress in avoiding them in the first place.
The ability to handle surprises may be a valid tool for analysis of an administration or candidate. But the incumbent should get no more credit for the opportunity to face a crisis than blame for having it to face. The occurrence or lack of a late crisis should not be another filter clouding issues or the clogging the filter of the electorate.
Incompetent Boobs Exposed (02-02-04)
Is it any wonder the media focused on the Dean scream more than answers to real questions? And what about the claim the market place should operate as Adam Smith said in Wealth of Nations, an "invisible hand"?
Free speech is out the window if not only buying airtime is required, but now even prohibited as CBS refused moveon.org’s "Child’s Pay" Super Bowl ad, exposing the national debt being passed on to our children. It would be one thing if consistently done, but this calls into question CBS’s professional credibility, not to mention right to airwaves.
Now with the investigation by the FCC into the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake promotional stunt, what does this say, about the market place being the place to determine what is free not to mention visible?
On the other slightly more visible hand, maybe CBS deserves kudos for one, getting more free coverage for the ad on other networks with their rejection of the ad based on their refusal to do advocacy ads. And for two, being so incompetent in their screening of their entertainment and more than suggestive ad campaigns which exposed the hypocrisy of trying to filter or not advocate for causes.
With the uncertainty of what was intended and what was presented the viewers, the voter should keep in mind that they are the important filter that sorts the questions of elect-ability. Is it too much to ask that "wardrobe malfunction" be connected with the "emperor’s new clothes" or budget and intelligence failures?
Is it any wonder the media focused on the Dean scream more than answers to real questions? And what about the claim the market place should operate as Adam Smith said in Wealth of Nations, an "invisible hand"?
Free speech is out the window if not only buying airtime is required, but now even prohibited as CBS refused moveon.org’s "Child’s Pay" Super Bowl ad, exposing the national debt being passed on to our children. It would be one thing if consistently done, but this calls into question CBS’s professional credibility, not to mention right to airwaves.
Now with the investigation by the FCC into the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake promotional stunt, what does this say, about the market place being the place to determine what is free not to mention visible?
On the other slightly more visible hand, maybe CBS deserves kudos for one, getting more free coverage for the ad on other networks with their rejection of the ad based on their refusal to do advocacy ads. And for two, being so incompetent in their screening of their entertainment and more than suggestive ad campaigns which exposed the hypocrisy of trying to filter or not advocate for causes.
With the uncertainty of what was intended and what was presented the viewers, the voter should keep in mind that they are the important filter that sorts the questions of elect-ability. Is it too much to ask that "wardrobe malfunction" be connected with the "emperor’s new clothes" or budget and intelligence failures?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)