The media worked its way into asking unimportant questions about the candidates? no, never...
This week I presented my political cartoons in class and I had the chace to show my opinion on a few issues. The one that I liked the most, was inspired by the recent debate in Philadelphia, last week.
The candidates were once again brought to a discussion in the form of a debate where they were able to address several issues including their differences, and how they both admire each others vision and goals, but that they would not want to go as running mates.
About 30 minutes into the debate, the moderator began to ask questions that were not pertinent to the choosing of a candidate.. The first question, or comment that needed a response is taht because of her lie about being under enemy fire, there were American people who did not trust her. The moderator even shows a clip of a citizen speaking this opinion.
In the next clip, about ten minutes after Hillary's question, Barack is addressed with a question by the moderator. He is asked about his friendship with a man named William Ayers. http://youtube.com/watch?v=m63NqWos_JU&feature=related.
The problem that I see with these questions that I believe are tied to our class, is that gaffes and casual friendships are spun so much by the media. Citizens who are affected by this are those who give in to the more emotional side of the politics, and not the logical. The media would be of better use to simply stand back and watch what happens as opposed to taking small aspects of a persons life and making them seem as though they were crucial to a Presidential election.
The candidates were once again brought to a discussion in the form of a debate where they were able to address several issues including their differences, and how they both admire each others vision and goals, but that they would not want to go as running mates.
About 30 minutes into the debate, the moderator began to ask questions that were not pertinent to the choosing of a candidate.
In the next clip, about ten minutes after Hillary's question, Barack is addressed with a question by the moderator. He is asked about his friendship with a man named William Ayers. http://youtube.com/watch?v=m63NqWos_JU&feature=related.
The problem that I see with these questions that I believe are tied to our class, is that gaffes and casual friendships are spun so much by the media. Citizens who are affected by this are those who give in to the more emotional side of the politics, and not the logical. The media would be of better use to simply stand back and watch what happens as opposed to taking small aspects of a persons life and making them seem as though they were crucial to a Presidential election.
posted by elopez | 12:41 PM
6 Comments:
I agree that these gaffes unrelated to politics are highlighted too much. While these gaffes could affect the way they perform as President, I think it would be more beneficial to hear their positions on relevant issues. I realize that Clinton recounting an inaccurate story or Obama having questionable friends may not be favorable, but none of these candidates are perfect. They are human too and we shouldn't expect a super hero. What we should expect is someone who can maintain a stable economy, keep us out of war and elevate the education system. We should also concentrate on some more positive aspects of the candidates. If any of these candidates has done something good, you certainly don't hear about that! But if one of them slips just a little you hear about it for days.
I also agree. I think the media should take a step back and just observe what happens instead of creating their own news. I would like to see the candidates live and not have to act through what the media scripts for them. And if the media is going to be so influential, they should atleast bring up new pieces of information and move on from things like the sniper attack. I think we all have heard enough of that.
I totally agree that these fairly minor things have become major issues in the media. I think that many people would agree that journalists, debate moderators, etc need to focus on the candidates' platforms and the good/bad they will do if elected. On that note, I understand the rational in discussing certain friendships and remarks. We do not want a liar, cheater, or person of questionable moral character in the White House. Numerous studies have demonstrated that voters chose candidates that they feel are trustworthy, friendly (sense of humor is an aspect of this), have a leadership sense or quality, and will make level headed decisions under pressure. I believe this is why the media focuses on these issues so heavily, however, I do not believe it makes them right.
It is troubling as a voter to see the issues so readily set aside for the sake of sensationalism. The media jumps on the incivility bandwagon almost as readily as candidates and surrogates do. The media now more than ever seems to appeal to a cultural desire to take an underhanded swipe at the reputation of a candidate to test their mettle rather than examine the validity of their policies. These questions, while lacking the substance required to make informed decisions, nonetheless illustrate how little politics appeal to the mind. No one pays attention to the logic behind arguments because it isn't necessarily edge-of-your-seat material.
I agree, I think the media is way too focused on getting some kind of story out to the people verses what is really politically important. Although I think it is important for the media to point out the good and bad, they should be more concerned with what is benefical to the people. The people want to read and hear about things that are going to affect us, not every single mistake a candidate makes.
Laura, I completely agree that the situation with the media is "troubling", as you put it. I mean, come on, is it really newsworthy that neither Clinton or Obama wear flag pins? What about healthcare, the war in Iraq, or the situation in Israel/Palestine? Those are the things we need to worry about. And no one has discussed the gaffes McCain has made himself; for instance, not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims- something I want my president to know, regardless of party affiliation. But, then again, that's not "sexy" or interesting, because, no offense, most people don't know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
It used to be "if it bleeds, it leads", now it seems that the media's motto is "if it doesn't bleed, cut it up so it does, then make it 'exclusive', and put it out there".
Post a Comment
<< Home