During this campaign I’ve probably heard “liberal media” more times than I could conceivably count. Especially in regards to Sarah Palin.
We’ve seen the nonsense about keeping her away from the evil media and there’s no one that can tell me with any honesty that they’ve really learned enough about her to be confident she would be a good president.
Give me a break. The media asks questions, they screw points toward their agenda — so what? The point is you’re there. If the media is constantly saying things that you feel don’t represent your positions correctly, then what is the solution? Do nothing? Boycott the media?
No, the only way to be sure your position is being represented correctly is to represent it yourself. If Sarah Palin was the sophisticated foreign and economic strategist her campaign keeps telling us she is, then she should be outraged. One would assume that outrage would motivate her to do more and more press conferences, to speak to the press whenever possible, to actually answer questions.
I’ve never been a huge fan of CNN’s Campbell Brown, but she did do a great job of holding the McCain campaign’s feet to the fire. I’m always a fan of rants (I’ve been known to go on a few myself), so any ranting is always fun to watch.
“Tonight I call on the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment. [...] Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. So let her act like one.”
My Grandmother (a huge advocate for male-female equality) accurately expressed the same concerns when the VP pick was new and fresh. She would say, “Sarah Palin wants to do a traditionally male job; she should have to deal with the same pressure during the campaign.” adding “You can’t have it both ways.”
I completely agree, as I usually do, with my Nana. Come on people, stop using the evil media ploy as an excuse to protect your candidates from the standard discourse that everyone who seeks positions of power must go through. If you actually think there is a bias, you should be putting yourself out there more, not less.
16 Responses to “Enough with the Liberal Media Bullshit”rss
Stephen Caudill, on September 24th, 2008, said:
HEAR, HEAR! Well said Mr. Vocino, as usual.
(also, the redesign… jizztastic.)
Ian Adams, on September 24th, 2008, said:
I’m also getting tired of people calling the press “MSM”. If you’re stereotyping the fourth estate so much that you need a three-letter abbreviation, then maybe you should stop.
chuck norris dude, on September 25th, 2008, said:
Exactly. If someone is aiming for presidential position, he should be treated like all the other candidates. On the other hand, to attack the spouse of the candidate (like Michelle Obama was) is a bit different business.
Lelia Katherine Thomas, on September 25th, 2008, said:
I am no big, mainstream media fan, but when it comes to the election coverage, the most evil thing about the media is its unwillingness (mostly) to try to encourage voters to realize we actually aren’t in a two party system. (Of course, voters should be well-read and knowledgeable enough to know that, but many are not.) CNN and the lot are terrible at highlighting who else is running. Early on in the debates, these sluggish giants were doing their best to pick winners before the “game” had even officially started. A lot of people appear easily swayed by this stuff, so that is of some concern, at the very least. I’d hate to think that even a fraction of voters will vote according to what infotainment tidbit they’ve heard.
McCain and Obama both seriously concern me, personally–though McCain slightly more than Obama, due to his total lack of, well, integrity.
Ian Adams, on September 26th, 2008, said:
@Lelia: I don’t think voters aren’t *aware* that there are more than the two major parties out there; I think they just don’t *care* about the third parties. I mean, seriously, have you seen those Sean Masterson ads? And don’t even get me started on Barr and Nader!
The authors of the U.S. Constitution were not as cut-and-dry in their ideals as many modern ideologues make them out to be. Many hoped that the federal government could avoid political parties altogether, wanting instead a government run by independent-minded people who served out of a sense of civic virtue. They thought that political parties were the tools of the overly-ambitious. However, not long after the new government began, many of those who opposed the very concept of political parties became the founders and leaders of political parties themselves.
The Republican Party itself used to be one of those smaller, outlier parties in the United States. One of the first two parties in this country was the Democratic-Republican Party, led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (originally an ardent “anti-political-party-ist”) to counter the Federalists of the Washington administration. After the War of 1812, the Federalists pretty much disappeared, leaving only one party in the country for roughly the next ten years, when the Whig party arose in opposition. Then, in the 1850s, agitation over the slavery issue disrupted these national coalitions. New parties such as the Free Soil and American (Know-Nothing) parties emerged but never attracted a majority of the voters. By 1856 the new Republican party had absorbed these smaller parties and supplanted the Whigs as the chief opposition to the Democrats.
While we have been a two-party system for the vast majority of our nation’s history, the parties that make up that duality have not always been the same. Not only that, but many of the third parties that have appeared through the years have even elected members to Congress. (Usually in smaller House districts; the statewide Senate races have been historically more difficult.) In the 19th century, the Anti-Masonic, Nullifiers, American (Know-Nothing), Free Soil, States’ Rightists, Unionists, Constitutional Union, Liberal Republican, National (Greenback), People’s (Populist), and Silver Republican parties all sent members to Congress. Third parties in the 20th century have included the Socialist, Progressive (Bull Moose), Prohibition, and Conservative parties. However none of those parties have ever made it to the White House; only the major parties of the day were able to do that. (Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, Whigs, Democrats and Republicans, to wit.)
Even countries with multiple political parties in government at any given time don’t necessarily vote in large numbers for members of a given smaller party. The Green Party of Canada, for example, has been around since 1983, but only this year finally got their first and only parliamentary riding, and that was only after an existing independent MP had switched party affiliation. After gaining that riding, the GPC was finally given recognition to join in the country’s election debates.
The major parties come and go; it takes a lot to build a major, nationwide coalition like the various major political parties throughout our nation’s history have managed to do. And duopoly by two particular parties is never guaranteed. Given that Ralph Nader is a household name (and Pat Buchanan, for that matter) I don’t think it’s fair to claim any kind of conspiracy on the press’ behalf to exclude third-party candidates from the public discourse. But there certainly is a threshold that must be broken through before the candidate of a minor third party can be taken seriously on a national level, evidenced not just in our country but many other countries as well. So I don’t think that people aren’t *aware* of other parties, I think those parties simply aren’t able to form large enough coalitions needed for most people to care about them.
Lelia Katherine Thomas, on September 27th, 2008, said:
I’m surprised you think people are aware of other political options. Being more aligned with Libertarian ideals than anything else (though I can’t stand Bob Barr, who I do not consider libertarian, and so won’t be voting for him), I have discovered, time and again, that I have to explain what libertarianism itself means. All this, and it is said to be the third largest party in the United States today. People do not know, because it is not communicated. By communication, I am not referring to these party’s ads getting airtime, but that news–which is supposed to tell people what is out there and going on–should cover the reality of an election. The reality is not a two party system, whether people vote for mainly two parties or not.
What I am discussing here is important, regardless of how people vote. If the role of news communications is to provide information regarding topics people are aware of, and topics they may not know about, then it should at least mention other parties and political members. You would think that 24/7 news channels that find the time to talk about Spears, Jolie and Pitt could also find the time to talk about, for instance, the fourteen other parties that existed in the 2004 election. (I’d like to see how many Americans could name three to five of those parties.)
The argument that not covering information regarding these parties is “fine,” because people “don’t care” about them, is poor, I think. Many people are caught up in their day-to-day lives, but news, which can make individuals aware of what’s going on around them (whether it does, is another discussion), can change things. As the saying goes, “knowledge is power,” and while some may do nothing with the knowledge they come by, others might. If even just a million more people vote differently, because coverage for other parties is given as much airtime as what celebrities are given, then I consider that important–again, whether historically people have considerably voted for third parties or not. People should at least know what’s out there, so they can make informed choices. Arguably, however, one doesn’t go to passive, traditional media for that.
By saying major media channels should provide coverage for other parties, I hardly think I am creating some conspiratorial claim. Ironically, the reason Nader and Buchanan are [some] household names is because they’ve received proper coverage, but Nader and Buchanan are hardly the beginning when it comes to other political members and parties.
Finally, while I agree that parties come and go, the Republican party has been around since 1854, the Democratic since 1828. While they may change and, indeed, come and go, they will almost certainly not “go” in our lifetimes, as they didn’t in our parents’ or grandparents’ and, for some, our great grandparents’. Yet if more people are aware of their options, this might change, even if slightly. I find it disconcerting that you seem not bothered by the fact that those who look to more traditional media are not getting coverage regarding all their political options but are, instead, getting infotainment fluff.
Ian Adams, on September 29th, 2008, said:
@Leila: First, where do you live, out of curiosity? It certainly sounds bizarre to me that you live in some black hole bereft of libertarians. I live in Seattle and work in the IT industry, and it seems like I can’t swing my arms around without running into a libertarian. Far from people not knowing what libertarianism is, my walk home from work takes me by several stickers and signs espousing libertarianism and urging people to vote libertarian. A rather large number of people in my social circle are libertarian, and a larger number of my co-workers are unabashedly libertarian. Nationwide, the Libertarian Party itself has 235,000 members registered, and libertarians — as part of the Republican Liberty Caucus — have been a large and important wing of the Republican Party since at least the 1970s. Just this year, Ron Paul got some 1.2 million votes during the Republican primary largely because of his libertarian views. That’s just barely scratching the surface, but I think it helps illustrate that libertarians in general and the Libertarian Party in particular are far from unknown in this country.
Second, the existence of third parties does not preclude classification as a two-party system, which is defined as a party system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections, at every level. So yes, the reality is in fact that the United States, like Jamaica, has a two-party system. I’m not saying that’s good or bad, simply that it is a fact.
Third, the press does in fact “mention other parties and political members”. Again using the Libertarian Party as just one example, we find coverage by several major news outlets, including Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Seattle Times, the New York Times, MSNBC, Fox News, and just to dig it in a little more, here’s a video from CNN interviewing Bob Barr. So apparently, contrary to your claim, the 24/7 news channels *do* find the time to talk about other parties in addition to Spears, Jolie and Pitt.
(And of course I do not claim at all that the thin sliver of news outlets I used as examples do not make up the entirety of the fourth estate; rather I merely wanted to pick a few of those which are considered major news outlets in the United States to use as examples.)
Third, I never said that not not covering third parties is “fine”, despite you putting quotes around the word as if I had said that. In fact, my argument was not at all to put any kind of value judgement about news coverage of third parties, so I have no idea where that mischaracterization of my position came from. My argument was only that smaller parties here in the US and around the world have historically garnered far less support than the major parties have in any given country, and that I personally think it’s because the majority of people in those countries generally don’t care about the smaller parties. There could be any number of reasons for that; people find that the various third parties don’t represent their values, or they disagree with the positions of those parties, or they don’t like the candidates put forward by a party personally, or even that they feel their vote would be wasted on a candidate who is unlikely to gain a majority of the vote. (Not to mention that they could simply find they agree with one of the major parties.) While I do hypothesize that this reasons is more likely to be true, I don’t claim to know the reason as anything approaching an absolute certainty (and in fact I think it’s more likely that there is more than just one reason); but given that the most viable third-party candidates *do* get media coverage, as evidenced above, it seems unlikely that people don’t vote for them for the reason that they simply aren’t aware that other parties exist.
Fourth, if, as you posit, the reason that Nader and Buchanan are household names is “because they’ve received proper coverage”, then it strains credulity to insist that third-party candidates do not receive proper coverage. Either third party candidates do receive proper coverage and people are aware of them, or they do not receive proper coverage and people are unaware of them; you can’t have it both ways.
Fifth, I am in 100% agreement with you that if people vote for third parties, the current political duopoly might change, even if slightly. I don’t think that point was in dispute at all. As I pointed out, such a thing is already happening in regards to the Green Party of Canada. But as was inferred in my previous comment, such changes historically happen slowly, over the course of generations, because of the challenges involved with building a large enough coalition nationally.
Finally, at what point did I imply I was unconcerned with the existence of low-information voters? In what way did I demonstrate a disagreement with the idea that healthy democracies depend on educated populaces? Where in my previous comment did I disagree with you that some news topics are disproportionately covered compared to others? Last time I checked, my name is “Ian”, not “Straw Man”.
Ian Adams, on September 29th, 2008, said:
Damn, found a couple typos in there after posting. You get the point, though. :)
Eva White, on October 10th, 2008, said:
I agree with your nana as well. If a female wants to do a male job she better have the guts to do it all the way.
cat, on November 4th, 2008, said:
For a female to do tha male job, I think it’s not a good idea, it’s named male job because it is supposed that males have to do it
watch friends online, on November 4th, 2008, said:
No one should be treated differently. I hate it when girls say how its sexism when we say they can’t do anything but they complain when they’re treated the same.
webkinz, on November 6th, 2008, said:
She was the best from McCain company…
Goran Website, on November 10th, 2008, said:
I think Sarah Palin killed it for McCain. All the negative press she attracted over shadowed their campaigns.
Stephen Hunter, on November 11th, 2008, said:
Great video and good point. To comment on the above comment, I don’t think Sarah Palin killed it for McCain. He wouldn’t of won anyway. There is no way, no matter how much of a change he could make, voters were going to take chance this time. Although I don’t think America could get any worse as it is now.
Obama smoked this campaign and that hadn’t been done since Jimmy Carter. I am looking forward to the improvement of America, but I think it is going to take two terms. Seems like the Bush name hasn’t really done any good for our countrymen.
Alex, on November 13th, 2008, said:
Aww, no need for that. There’s so much crap out there that your higher quality methodologies are pretty damned safe and sound.
Jeremy, on November 17th, 2008, said:
Agreed, also I thought you should be aware that the video embedded in this post is no longer available.
Jeremy
Commenting
You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>Your nasty comment spam will be blocked by Akismet.