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.