|
Fetching Water
By David Glenn Cox
The criticism of the Democratic debate held on the ABC network last week is well-placed, but the old Roman maxim, “who gains from this?” holds true. So, who does gain from this? Hillary Clinton? In the short term, perhaps, but in the long term, not at all. There was nothing new here, no new revelations. Only the juvenile and unprofessional "when did you stop beating your wife" questions that Fox News has made famous.
The two moderators, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, had forgotten that their role was to moderate the debate, to act as referees, to keep the debate on track. Instead, they became participants, claiming for themselves the mantle of voice of the people and grand high inquisitor. Taking the debate off track rather then conducting it down the track. So far, in fact, that the audience began to boo, and thank God for that. Americans are too polite as it is.
Years ago, award shows like the Emmys and Academy Awards had alcohol readily available but with the rise of television and the lengthening programs, the alcohol encouraged the audience to say what they really thought instead of sitting quietly or applauding politely. So, the honest audience response was muffled by limiting the alcohol intake. The network didn’t want a genuine response, they wanted a staged response.
In '04, during a Democratic debates, Dennis Kucinich took ABC’s Ted Koppel to the woodshed over the mainstream network's attempts to turn the campaign into a horse race, bereft of any issues. The comment earned Kucinich the largest applause of the evening and also the enmity of the media. From that point on he was persona non grata; he could cure cancer and pitch a no-hitter in the World Series and gain no media attention whatsoever.
To compete successfully a candidate must have media attention, regardless of the quality of their positions. So, who’s driving here? Who is really in charge? The candidates? Or has it devolved into American Idol? The media runs the show and the candidates become only groveling contestants. If only Mr. Obama had answered, “I came here to debate the issues of the day with my party rival, not to play gotcha politics. These questions that you ask, off the subject, out of date and already answered, could all easily be found by a click of the mouse on the Google search engine. If we are not going to talk about the issues here, I’ll meet with those who do wish to discuss the issues in ten minutes, outside in the parking lot." Then, remove his earpiece and walk away, leaving ABC to twist in the wind.
Harry Truman, running in '48, knew what kind of treatment he would receive in the media. Truman was running against two Democratic opponents and nations newspaper editors had voted in an opinion poll, 50 to 0, against his reelection. Telling all who would listen, “I want you to hear from my lips the things they are saying about your President. Don’t vote for me, vote for yourself.” Truman wouldn’t play the media’s game of letting them control the argument. He took his case to the people and lampooned Dewey’s platitudes because he knew good and damn well that the media wouldn’t. He even mocked a network commentator's broadcast of the returns on Election Day. Truman did more than win the White House; he beat big media.
So, who won the debate the other night? Not Obama or Clinton and certainly not ABC; when a room full of sober Americans begins to boo, Buddy, you got problems. The intended winner was John McCain; the idea was to bloody the candidates leaving McCain fresh and pristine while salting the Democratic field with mindless accusations and land mines legitimized by being repeated during the debates. Who among us can stand behind every comment ever made by our minister or be responsible for the character of every person that we have ever come in contact with?
The recent raids on the Mormon polygamist sect in Texas report they have a branch in Arizona; has John McCain been asked about any possible connection with them? If they had been in Obama’s district or Clinton’s, would they have been asked? You bet your bottom dollar they would have. The media is fetching water for McCain because McCain is an incredibly weak candidate. Reports of McCain’s possible inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist flash on the screen and are then gone but the stupid flag pin story won’t go away.
McCain is so weak, in fact, that he has trouble rallying his own base. He has trouble raising money from people to whom money is like water, and yet they turn him away, thirsting. The Senator is one of the richest men on Capitol Hill and is married to a beer heiress. But there is no talk of McCain’s finances or lavish homes or alcohol-fueled, luxurious lifestyle. Bill Clinton earning four million dollars last year is big news, big news when four million dollars wouldn’t buy you an invite to the clubs of the super wealthy.
McCain hides behind his wife’s wealthy petticoats, keeping her income separate from his, separate until campaign season rolls around, that is. How many times did we hear about John Kerry’s fortune through his wealthy wife, the ketchup heiress? During the savings and loan fiasco of the 1980’s, it was this separation that kept John McCain lily white and pure, all those real estate transactions with Charles Keating had been made with his wife and with his father-in-law. There was no proof that he benefited personally, but the Clinton’s have been dogged by Whitewater for decades and Obama’s second lot continues to be an issue.
ABC was booed last night and deserved to be; they all need to be. Those airwaves that they broadcast on and make their livings on are the property of the people of the United States. Not only do we have the right to boo but we also have the right to say, “shut the hell up!” Just like any crooked operation, if they are not going to run it on the level, we have the right to shut it down. In a way the winner the other night was the booing crowd for showing big media the real voice of the people.
But the weakness of the Republican nominee cannot be overstated. McCain calls himself strong on national defense, yet while on a taxpayer paid junket to Iraq tried to engage a Shiite Iraqi politician in a conversation about stopping the rise of Iran. Ignorant not only about American foreign policy, but Iraqi politics as well, and that is called his strong suit! But the Republican battle plan is to run on the Eisenhower model of nice man, war hero. To let the Democrats bloody themselves while McCain stays above the fray, as McCain tells Sean Hannity, “Let’s let bygones be bygones.” Then he calls a questioner who asked about his age, “A little jerk.”
McCain is no Eisenhower, nor is he a nice man and that’s why the mighty spin machine is cranking up the rollers. To tell us all the attributes of John McCain’s plan for this or that while at the same time telling us about the flaws in Clinton’s or Obama’s plans. The debate was just the beginning, as the broadcast networks burn their deck chairs trying to keep up a head of steam. Unaware, perhaps, that it is they themselves that have become the sacrificial lambs of this campaign. The American public listens not to the heirs of Morrow and Cronkite.
The broadcast network news has been reduced to a medicine show by the likes of Gibson and Stephanopoulos and Fox News. The mainstream media pounced on Barrack Obama’s comments about Americans being bitter but the story quickly died when it was discovered that the American voter is bitter and should be bitter. If the networks didn’t believe it, the booing certainly put an exclamation point on it. I believe the poem by John Donne applies to the broadcast networks, "because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(854 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
