Media: January 2008 Archives

The debate was easy to score. The candidates 10 the media minus 2. These debates show the media at our very worst—and I mean this in a truly bi-partisan way. In both the Republican debate and the Democratic debate CNN and Wolf Blitzer did their very best to create good television by utilizing bad news practices.

They wanted action. They wanted sparks to fly. A good fight makes for good TV. Romney and McCain sparing Tuesday night and getting all those clips played on all the other networks encouraged CNN to be provocative and to lob “gotcha” questions calculated to get anger, outrage and a good picture. This was like paparazzi for candidates. The old paparazzi trick is to shout out something insulting and get the picture of the star or starlet with a snarl.

CNN isn’t the only guilty party. Most of the debates have featured bomb lobbing, with the journos going for the questions designed to squeeze the candidate into saying something that will start a fight. Most candidates do not rise to the bait that these master baiters toss them. It is not after all the job of the candidates to make good TV by looking bad, angry or confrontational.

The media do this all the time and thank goodness they usually aim at public figures. But why does this seem okay to do? I thought we were supposed to report the news and not make it or fake it. The political paparazzi seem to me to be like people yelling, “Fire!” in a crowded theatre—they can foresee the trouble they are intentionally creating.

Too many questions were not designed for their probative value but only to incite. Why are journalists involved in this kind of train wreck pandering to the lowest common denominator? The public deserves to be able to distinguish news from entertainment. News divisions should stay in the news business and leave reality TV alone. Obama and Clinton are not Britney and K-fed. Romney and McCain are not Ali and Frazier. Leave the trash and trash talk to sports and entertainment. Ask some real question that illuminate through reasoned argument not incendiary explosions. They/we should portray reality not mold it. Shame on them. Shame on us.

You can just hear the weariness in the voice of Associated Press Reporter Glen Johnson, who must listen to the campaign BS day in and day out. When Mitt was trying to cast himself as a political outsider yesterday at Staples and then said, "I don't have lobbyists running my campaign. I don't have lobbyists tied to my..." -- apparently Johnson couldn't take it anymore.

Take a listen. It's fun.

Notice how Mitt just can't let it go and then pursues the reporter to try and make him see the light.

On the same day, Bill Clinton takes an ABC reporter to school, using his best governessy voice to explain the lawsuit in Nevada. That's fun too.

While I wouldn't go far as Rob, and describe Hugh Hewitt as "America's least intellectually honest pundit" (only because there are so many others vying for that title), I have always found Hewitt to be as predictably partisan as anyone in the business. Hugh believes whatever the GOP believes; and any time a Republican and Democrat disagree on something -- even if it's only what to have for breakfast -- in Hugh's mind, the Republican is right, the Democrat is wrong. Hugh seems to have replaced his political and moral compass with sheer party calculation.

And that makes interesting this presidential primary season, where Hewitt now has to choose between Republicans. Naturally, he chooses the party establishment's candidate, Mitt Romney. And naturally, he turns his outwardly cordial, but ruthless-nonetheless attacks against other Republicans. His top target these days is John McCain, who may be leading the GOP primaries, but is decidedly not the party establishment's candidate.

So Hugh cheerleads about the "ABM Treaty" -- which stands for "Anyone But McCain." But this exposes how little his convictions matter compared to his partisan loyalties.

In fairness, I have my concerns about McCain, too -- any conservative would -- which is why I tend to prefer Huckabee. But are McCain's deviations from conservative orthodoxy really worse than Rudy Giuliani's affinity for abortion? Or Ron Paul's racist affiliations? Is it really in the party's interest to get anyone but McCain when such noxious characters are still in the race?

Hugh's ABM crowd gets downright loopy in its hatred for McCain, the skunk at the GOP lawn party. The other day, Hugh's show had on as a guest Rick Santorum leading the "ABM" chorus. Santorum says McCain is "very, very dangerous for Republicans..... There’s nothing worse than having a Democratic Congress and a Republican president who would act like a Democrat in matters that are important to conservatives.”

This, by the way, comes from the guy who went around Pennsylvania campaigning for Arlen Specter.

But this is how things work for Hugh and the ABM crowd. The Party comes first -- even before the ideals that supposedly animate it.

On second thought, maybe Rob's right about Hugh after all ...

Huckabee-Colbert '08.

I heard Laura Ingraham on the radio this morning, claiming that somehow it was beneath the dignity of something or another for a presidential candidate to appear on a gag show. Oh please. This is another reason why Huckabee has a shot -- he has a sense of humor, he doesn't take himself too seriously, and he can connect to real people.

And the GOP establishment can't stand him for it.