AOL online reported two major turn of events in the 2008 election for president. The first came a few days ago in an article that revealed the endorsment of Barack Obama from both the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, both unexpected allies. Then, just today Gen. Colin Powell, a Republican, announced he would be voting for Sen. Barack Obama for president. This was the final nail in the coffin for McCain I believe, though I'm sure that's not what Gen. Powell intended. I've also researched as list of Newspaper endorsements for respective candidates as reported over AOL. com and out of eighteen, only three endorsed Sen. McCain. I think it's pretty hard to not make something of these events. It's damn near impossible to not think this is a clear indication of were our country is leaning, and wanting to go. I've found that in the many people I speak with about the election, the ones who are undecided, they really don't want to trust Obama, they say for experience reasons, but I think it's deeper. I believe people find Obama hard to believe, as in it really isn't possible for someone like him to have come along. As is difficult in all circumstances where a human that is in fact a little more special than most of us comes along and actually exists, like in the flesh and blood and not just in stories or history books, denial is a natural reaction. We're so prompt at excepting bad news, or negative energy into our lives that seeing something positive come true becomes offensive to us. It hurts that we're not more closely a part of it, or perhaps we're all just too skeptical to believe it could be true. We don't want to believe in something and then suffer disappointment, so it's better to decide to not believe in the first place. This is where faith has to take over. This is when that little urge in your gut has to win out and lead you in a direction that isn't so sure, but is absolutely positive. We've starved for positivity for so long that it's natural our minds and bodies would reject it, like a five course meal to a prisoner, it makes us sick as opposed to happy. We're in no state to take it in yet and so we shove it away. But some meals are just too enticing, like someone read our minds and prepared our absolute favorites and some how, those smells and those colors, though churning our stomachs, are also bringing up memories of better days, when safety and happiness surrounded us every day. And we can't shake that feeling. The remembered feeling of that long ago time when we really felt important, like dreams could come true. That certainty that existed because we'd never been hurt or disappointed or over looked before. Prior to being jaded by life's many disappointments we began as wide eyed kids open to the possibility of something great happening to us EVERY day and all the time. The whole world was surprising and beautiful. We can have those things again. Not actual material trophies, but faith and hope and wide eyed interest. Those are the things most precious any way.
Now I realize Obama is a man, not a messiah. He's not even as impressive as Martin Luther King Jr., but he's something more then we've see in a long time. A new hopeful approach to a country actually stinking with disappointment. He dares to say hey, things can be different, but in a way unoffensive enough for us to want to listen and our stomachs to hold out while we do so. He's calm, cool and collected. He's not cocky or aggressive, but he is assertive and constant. He's open minded and he actually likes to listen, but his own ideas are well formed and well communicated. This kids just got it all, despite lacking the "experience". Which I believe galls people all the more, because how could this new guy have something that nobody else does??? We were here first. But maybe you never really deserved to be and that's what offends you most about the new guy. When he stands next to you, it's obvious. And the "experienced" guys get angry instead of honest and defensive instead of relieved that nobodies trying to expose their skeletons or belittle them for being who they are, of having done what they've done. All that's happened is the right man has finally come along. It's not an insult, it's a changing of the guard. Everyone still has their helmet and pins.
I can't help but feel that Obama will change. That in achieving his child hood dream of becoming president of the United States, he will loose all the innocence and newness that he has right now. The saddest part of seeing Obama being president will be the greying of his hair and the loss of his own innocence. Being a new comer has it's advantages and over the next four years, he won't be a new comer any more. But his intellect and rational will hold him out. He's no dumby and despite what I just wrote, he's no ingenue either. I believe he knows what he's in for, but might not know the full extent of what it will do to him personally. How could he? Could any of us plan that far ahead?
What ever does happen over the next few weeks there is something I am certain of. Barack Obama will be president of the United States of America. And the world will get a whole new picture of what an American is. We'll surprise everybody, as if for the first time, because it's been so long since we've delivered anything new and interesting to them. We'll catch them off guard, and they'll like us for it and we'll all have something to be giddy about for a while. After over 200 years of the world deciding what an American is and what to expect from us, we're gonna throw 'em a curve ball. And yes, they may be pissed that where a hit should of been, they just got a strike, but it's such a damn good pitch, they'll have to be impressed anyway. That's when being wrong feels really right. When you've been beaten by someone who REALLY deserved to beat you. There's no shame in that. In fact, that innocent kid deep down inside of us can't help but being really impressed.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
I've been gone too long. Ideas have been flooding my mind but I haven't written then down. It's had an extremely negative effect on me. I'm this bottle of anger and anxiety and I want it to go away. Here's my first attempt at purging.
"KILL HIM"- are you out of your fucking mind!?? Honestly I am appauled that the entire republcian rally wasn't shut the fuck down just to weed that dispicable mother fucker out. Palin stood on her podiem basking in the hate, and all McCain had to say at the most recent bebate was how unfair Obama had been to him?????? "KILL HIM"- God those words won't get out of my head. This is the power of video. It's so intense, to actually witness the moment happening and so much more effective then any newspaper article could be. Were this rally event simply discribed in an article I couldn't have FELT the comment the way I did. It had an EMOTIOLAL impact on me, not just an intellectual one. CNN really had the most wonderful idea with these video bites. It's LIVE reporting. Reporting that isn't reporting so much as sharing what's going on at any given moment. It reminded me of what I read in Beckett chapter 2 and his entire "Network process", how the public is never not a part of this process. The news becomes so much more ALIVE that way. There's no static and solidity because everything keeps moving. I have this feeling that if I'd read about this event in an article, there would have been barely any effect. Of course I there is a slight worry that perhaps these emotional reactions are a little dangerous and getting wrapped up in news events might be unhealthy. Perhaps a little distance is necessary in order to not want to KILL somebody back! Really it sucked me in to the extreme and I wonder if it's such a positive thing. It's definately an effective form a media, but maybe TOO effective, do you know what I mean? Honestly I wanted to rip McCain's throat out! That's not the healthiest thing to feel. Coming full circle however, I felt such trememdous amounts of respect for PRESIDENT Obama, because he didn't let himself get wrapped up in the ciaous. He remained calm and also open to all of McCain statements, even while his political alignements were questioned in the wake of having his life threatened. This is steadiness to almost perturbing extent, which I think is many people's problem with Obama. They think he's just TOO cool and plays it safe all the time, by choosing to take the high road instead of getting down and dirty. I don't think Obama take's the safe road however. Is it safe to sit face to face with someone who doesn't really care that one of his supporters wants you dead? Is it safe to remain opened to all his opposing thoughts and ideas, even when instinct would tell you to take him down in defense of yourself? Obama was obviously upset personally by all McCain's campaign has said about him, but he puts his personal interests aside. That's almost selflessness, and in a politician, that's probably never going to happen again. AOL absolutely stunned me therefore, when after the debate they maid announcements stating McCain had won the debate because of his attacks on Obama which they defined as "McCain declaring his independence". Why do they keep on watering down McCain's actions and playing up all of Obama's imperfections? In my opinion it's desperation dressed up. What makes me sad is that some voters are falling for it, just cause they really want a good fight. That's all some people want. I realized that after the debate last night. What the candidates are saying is none consequential. Frigtening actually.
"KILL HIM"- are you out of your fucking mind!?? Honestly I am appauled that the entire republcian rally wasn't shut the fuck down just to weed that dispicable mother fucker out. Palin stood on her podiem basking in the hate, and all McCain had to say at the most recent bebate was how unfair Obama had been to him?????? "KILL HIM"- God those words won't get out of my head. This is the power of video. It's so intense, to actually witness the moment happening and so much more effective then any newspaper article could be. Were this rally event simply discribed in an article I couldn't have FELT the comment the way I did. It had an EMOTIOLAL impact on me, not just an intellectual one. CNN really had the most wonderful idea with these video bites. It's LIVE reporting. Reporting that isn't reporting so much as sharing what's going on at any given moment. It reminded me of what I read in Beckett chapter 2 and his entire "Network process", how the public is never not a part of this process. The news becomes so much more ALIVE that way. There's no static and solidity because everything keeps moving. I have this feeling that if I'd read about this event in an article, there would have been barely any effect. Of course I there is a slight worry that perhaps these emotional reactions are a little dangerous and getting wrapped up in news events might be unhealthy. Perhaps a little distance is necessary in order to not want to KILL somebody back! Really it sucked me in to the extreme and I wonder if it's such a positive thing. It's definately an effective form a media, but maybe TOO effective, do you know what I mean? Honestly I wanted to rip McCain's throat out! That's not the healthiest thing to feel. Coming full circle however, I felt such trememdous amounts of respect for PRESIDENT Obama, because he didn't let himself get wrapped up in the ciaous. He remained calm and also open to all of McCain statements, even while his political alignements were questioned in the wake of having his life threatened. This is steadiness to almost perturbing extent, which I think is many people's problem with Obama. They think he's just TOO cool and plays it safe all the time, by choosing to take the high road instead of getting down and dirty. I don't think Obama take's the safe road however. Is it safe to sit face to face with someone who doesn't really care that one of his supporters wants you dead? Is it safe to remain opened to all his opposing thoughts and ideas, even when instinct would tell you to take him down in defense of yourself? Obama was obviously upset personally by all McCain's campaign has said about him, but he puts his personal interests aside. That's almost selflessness, and in a politician, that's probably never going to happen again. AOL absolutely stunned me therefore, when after the debate they maid announcements stating McCain had won the debate because of his attacks on Obama which they defined as "McCain declaring his independence". Why do they keep on watering down McCain's actions and playing up all of Obama's imperfections? In my opinion it's desperation dressed up. What makes me sad is that some voters are falling for it, just cause they really want a good fight. That's all some people want. I realized that after the debate last night. What the candidates are saying is none consequential. Frigtening actually.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
VP Debate
The outcome of the VP debate was obvious and though I am completely biased in favor of the Obama camp, it cheered me to here that polls generally agreed with me. The media coverage of the event was rapid, as predicted and as anticipated it was hot off the press. It had his the online air waves before I could get me hands on a full version of the debate. I'd worked late last Thursday and was getting home just as the debate had wrapped up. Not a particularly convenient position to be in when you're assigned to FIRST WATCH the debate THEN COMMENT on the coverage. I got to frustrated that the only recordings of the evening where cut up into parts one through five, or one through ten, and often they were out of order or missing a part. I'm still not sure I witnessed the entire debate. I honestly don't remember Joe Biden's emotional mention of his single father hood. I did see what I believe was most of the debate however, and from what I saw, It was ten times more exciting then the presidential debate the week before.
After I'd pieced together the bits of the debate on google video's (honestly, CNN and CSPAN weren't downloading properly and required certain plug ins, which irritated me- perhaps they just hadn't enough time to post the entire event yet. I can't be sure), I allowed myself to read the commentary and indulge in commentary video bites (which, ironically, CNN had already posted, and made very easily accessible..hmmmm). After reading a few articles and taking in a few videos, I was extremely disappointed to realize most reporters had watered down the good of Joe Biden with the highlights of Sarah Palin. Every time they complimented his thorough answers and knowledge, they felt the need to mention how surprisingly together she was, and how surprisingly well informed she seemed to be. They didn't stay on subject. They were so intent on seeming neutral, they compared apples and oranges in order to do so, which I don't believe is good reporting. For example, if they were going to compliment Joe Biden on his thorough answers and extensive knowledge, then continue to comment on the thoroughness and knowledge displayed by Sarah Palin. In my opinion she displayed none of either to speak of, but say that for Christ's sake. If they'd been talking about Charisma, and they couldn't help but mention Sarah Palin's audience appeal, then stay on subject and tell why or why not Joe Biden connected with the audience in the same way. Every reporter seemed sooo intent of playing middle ground, they forgot to stand their ground and remain on subject. Now I respect their general goal to remain neutral. I believe this is the moral responsibility of the press, but speak on subject to subject don't jump around to point out all the goods, then all the bads. This kind of reporting blurrs the issues, instead of clarifying them.
I must say the easiest to comprehend is a chart that AOL constructed. It is made up of four reporters, two democrat, two republican, and they are asked to score specific categories from one to five for each of the candidates. This way you can see exactly how each candidate fared in comparison to each other in each of the categories. The categories range from knowledge to appearance to audience appeal and so on. By being placed side to side it's easy to compare the two appropriately, as opposed to washing out ones' positive aspect with the an other's completely different positive aspect. It's chaotic and confusing. Of course on this AOL chart I did notice a certain pattern of Democrats being fair, yes leaning toward their candidate but not giving the opposition much below a three, as opposed to the Republican reporters who often gave Joes Biden VERY low scores, as they had done with Obama. I thought that was pretty terrible and pretty darn revealing as to the way they operate.
As an aside, I've noticed recently with the "smear" campaign coverage, the reporters have really begun to hurt the Obama camp with this watered down, overly fair coverage. They continue to say "both candidates" are pulling out their smear campaign strategies and getting ugly, when the Obama camp has been far less malicious and far more retaliatory simply because they had to be. How can any reporter lump Obama's calling McCain erratic on policies to McCain painting Obama as a pal to terrorists and a covert Muslim terrorist himself. One is hard hitting, but the other is just plain trash. But Reporters lump them in together, not making any distinction between the two strategies. I personally feel the Obama camp has maintained their integrity. In response to Palin and McCain's first onslaught of attacks the Obama campaign responded only be saying that McCain wants to distract people from the real issues by attempting to smear Obama. I think that's pretty classy considering they could have dug into Palin/McCain's past and found a whole hell of a lot of skeletons to lay out had they so chosen. They have not but conversely have repeatedly tried to turn attention back to the issues at hand. They should be praised for this, but, because the press wants to appear unbiased, is insisting upon lumping all arguments together, reporting them as if they are all similar. They are not. For example "At the same time, Obama has been hitting McCain on the stump, charging that his campaign is running away from the real issues to launch "Swift-boat style" smears. In one recent advertisement, the Obama campaign quotes an editorial saying McCain has shown "erratic" leadership over the past two weeks." Michael Scherer (CNN on line). And there you go. How is that smearing him? It's saying exactly what is happening and retaliating. How can he not retaliate in some way, and of all the ways to do it, this is the most benign.
Yes, neutrality is important in reporting. But is this blurring of the lines a way to be neutral, or a way of copping out? Even worse, could it be a way of not being neutral at all, but honestly attempting to make one (Obama) look as bad as the other (McCain). I'd hate to think of the later really being a possibility at this point.
After I'd pieced together the bits of the debate on google video's (honestly, CNN and CSPAN weren't downloading properly and required certain plug ins, which irritated me- perhaps they just hadn't enough time to post the entire event yet. I can't be sure), I allowed myself to read the commentary and indulge in commentary video bites (which, ironically, CNN had already posted, and made very easily accessible..hmmmm). After reading a few articles and taking in a few videos, I was extremely disappointed to realize most reporters had watered down the good of Joe Biden with the highlights of Sarah Palin. Every time they complimented his thorough answers and knowledge, they felt the need to mention how surprisingly together she was, and how surprisingly well informed she seemed to be. They didn't stay on subject. They were so intent on seeming neutral, they compared apples and oranges in order to do so, which I don't believe is good reporting. For example, if they were going to compliment Joe Biden on his thorough answers and extensive knowledge, then continue to comment on the thoroughness and knowledge displayed by Sarah Palin. In my opinion she displayed none of either to speak of, but say that for Christ's sake. If they'd been talking about Charisma, and they couldn't help but mention Sarah Palin's audience appeal, then stay on subject and tell why or why not Joe Biden connected with the audience in the same way. Every reporter seemed sooo intent of playing middle ground, they forgot to stand their ground and remain on subject. Now I respect their general goal to remain neutral. I believe this is the moral responsibility of the press, but speak on subject to subject don't jump around to point out all the goods, then all the bads. This kind of reporting blurrs the issues, instead of clarifying them.
I must say the easiest to comprehend is a chart that AOL constructed. It is made up of four reporters, two democrat, two republican, and they are asked to score specific categories from one to five for each of the candidates. This way you can see exactly how each candidate fared in comparison to each other in each of the categories. The categories range from knowledge to appearance to audience appeal and so on. By being placed side to side it's easy to compare the two appropriately, as opposed to washing out ones' positive aspect with the an other's completely different positive aspect. It's chaotic and confusing. Of course on this AOL chart I did notice a certain pattern of Democrats being fair, yes leaning toward their candidate but not giving the opposition much below a three, as opposed to the Republican reporters who often gave Joes Biden VERY low scores, as they had done with Obama. I thought that was pretty terrible and pretty darn revealing as to the way they operate.
As an aside, I've noticed recently with the "smear" campaign coverage, the reporters have really begun to hurt the Obama camp with this watered down, overly fair coverage. They continue to say "both candidates" are pulling out their smear campaign strategies and getting ugly, when the Obama camp has been far less malicious and far more retaliatory simply because they had to be. How can any reporter lump Obama's calling McCain erratic on policies to McCain painting Obama as a pal to terrorists and a covert Muslim terrorist himself. One is hard hitting, but the other is just plain trash. But Reporters lump them in together, not making any distinction between the two strategies. I personally feel the Obama camp has maintained their integrity. In response to Palin and McCain's first onslaught of attacks the Obama campaign responded only be saying that McCain wants to distract people from the real issues by attempting to smear Obama. I think that's pretty classy considering they could have dug into Palin/McCain's past and found a whole hell of a lot of skeletons to lay out had they so chosen. They have not but conversely have repeatedly tried to turn attention back to the issues at hand. They should be praised for this, but, because the press wants to appear unbiased, is insisting upon lumping all arguments together, reporting them as if they are all similar. They are not. For example "At the same time, Obama has been hitting McCain on the stump, charging that his campaign is running away from the real issues to launch "Swift-boat style" smears. In one recent advertisement, the Obama campaign quotes an editorial saying McCain has shown "erratic" leadership over the past two weeks." Michael Scherer (CNN on line). And there you go. How is that smearing him? It's saying exactly what is happening and retaliating. How can he not retaliate in some way, and of all the ways to do it, this is the most benign.
Yes, neutrality is important in reporting. But is this blurring of the lines a way to be neutral, or a way of copping out? Even worse, could it be a way of not being neutral at all, but honestly attempting to make one (Obama) look as bad as the other (McCain). I'd hate to think of the later really being a possibility at this point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
