The Media Is Big Loser In VP Debate

To make a judgment about every horse race, you always want to know ‘who won?’. But in the context of last night’s vice-presidential debate, it is also relevant to know ‘who lost?’. And in this case, you have to say that the mainstream media lost, BIG TIME.

Leading up to the debate, NBC’s political director Chuck Todd called the debate and the race as already over. That Gov. Sarah Palin lost the debate and McCain lost the race even before last night’s debate started. They characterized the debate as if, to use a boxing analogy, Sen. Joe Biden would win the match in the first minute of round one in a 15 round fight. Well, if you saw the debate last night, you have to agree that the fight went the distance. And if anyone got so much as a black eye, it was the 35 year defending champion Joe Biden. But in terms of this debate, a draw is a win for Palin.

Based on all the media hype leading up to the debate, you could come away feeling that Palin won only because she didn’t lose in the first round.

It does not take much to confirm the notion that 2008 is the year that journalism died. All one needed to do is to watch last night’s debate analysis on MSNBC immediately following the debate. Remember when journalism consisted of reporting what happened? The lineup on MSNBC last night took shots at Gov. Palin on ‘what she didn’t say.’ It looked like they tried to do in round sixteen what Joe Biden could not do in the first fifteen.

0 thoughts on “The Media Is Big Loser In VP Debate”

  1. The Shock Doctrine book, or the premise of it is interesting. But I don’t see where anyone gains. Perpetrators usually get hauled off to court, or jail. Seems like everyone loses.

    But what’s just as interesting, is that there is a parallel but opposite doctrine called the the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Instead of being carried out by the government and against the people, it is carried out by activists and against the government. This was born at Columbia University and was inspired by Saul Alinsky in the 60’s. See if any of this rings a bell in the rise of liberalism since then? It does with me.

    The Cloward-Piven strategy is detailed in an article by James Simpson in the American Thinker. From that article entitled Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. . .

    The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

    The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

    Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

    “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

    Now I don’t happen to think that this Cloward-Piven Strategy represents Barack Obama’s motivation, but it does reflect the ideologies of his mentors, friends and associates, especially where his work and relationships with ACORN are concerned. One could argue that Obama is a pawn in that movement, unwitting or otherwise, or as I believe, his education, training, and life’s work innocently follow along that destructive path in the name of feel-good populism. Which explains to me why he was, and is, so popular in Germany.

    The left just seems to despise capitalism. Or, as the C-P strategy suggests, to champion those at the bottom of the barrel at the expense and to the detriment of it.

  2. I don’t think manipulating the market caused the problem. I think lack of regulation caused the problem. And you’re right, Republicans are not solely to blame (although I would argue that they are principally responsible for the relevant deregulation). That said, I don’t think manipulation of the market is the right idea. I’m not an economist, and smarter people than me are telling the Powers that Be that this is the right way to go, but I just don’t think it’s the role of government. The furthest extent to which the government should go is to offer low-interest or interest-free loans to these companies. Government should not be purchasing assets/paper.

    That said, I don’t have the answer.

    Naomi Klein has a book out called The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism in which she argues that sometimes governments manufacture or at a minimum take advantage of crises such as this to pass unpopular legislation, or policies that only benefit special interests, etc. I saw an interview she did the other day where she was saying this may be one of those cases. I don’t know how much weight I put in all of what she was saying but it’s an interesting idea, at least.

  3. Well, I don’t think you’re crazy. You are one of the few liberals I’ve known, even if only online, that can manage to talk politics without going off the deep end with name calling. I appreciate that.

    Whether the perpetrators are ‘corporate politicians’ or just ‘dirty politicians,’ those are not exclusive to the R’s. In the Fanny/Freddy fiasco, it is the D’s I’ve written about in here that are responsible for letting it get out of hand, and the R’s that sat by and let it happen. Why would they let it happen? Simply out of fear of being labeled a racist. They would rather the economy go in the tank, knowing that the Congressional Black Caucus and Dems on the banking committee (Dodd,Frank) would turn it into a racial thing against them rather than an economic thing affecting the economy. Now, everyone has a tough pill to swallow and, amazingly, Barney Frank is blaming Republicans for it anyway.

    That we agree that this bailout is bad is curious but not unusual. A lot of Democrats voted against it too. It had bi-partisan Nay’s! Just not enough to defeat it. I wonder if your objection to the bailout is for the same reason as mine? I have two objections to it.

    1) It is unconstitutional based solely on the preamble of it:

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Promote the general welfare does not mean insure the general welfare, and, there is no liberty when it is usurped by the government.

    2) By its actions, the bill totally socializes the financial industry of the country. Whether, like Bush says, the bill will save us from a financial crisis is besides the point. The right solution would be one that does not socialize the entire economy and still solves the problem.

    That we are supposed to have confidence, that the same people that created this problem can fix it in a matter of a week, if I may quote a famous politician, ‘requires a suspension of disbelief.’ Congress and Bush are seeming more like used car salesmen than statesmen. No disrespect to used car salesmen.

    I don’t have a solution. I’m not that smart. But I do know that going the socialist route is not the correct route. Manipulating the market made the problem. Now, manipulating the market and putting taxpayers on the hook is supposed to fix it? I don’t think so. The answer lies somewhere in letting some companies fail and/or reorganize and/or renegotiate their currently worthless paper, and not allow mortgages from now on to be ‘securitized.’

    What do you think?

  4. Hey, even if you do think I’m a crazy liberal, I agree with you on the bailout. The government shouldn’t get involved to that level. You’ve got to understand, the people in office right now are not Republicans in the traditional sense of the word. They are corporate politicians, whose goal is to milk the system for as much money as possible for themselves and their corporate friends.

  5. No doubt the McCain campaign is fighting an uphill battle. They’re not only running against Obama, but against the MSM too!

    The media decides how much scrutiny Obama gets (very little) and how much scrutiny Palin and McCain get, the max. It’s a shame but it is what it is.

    I have videos on the blog that show the ineptitude of people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd concerning this economic crisis. I didn’t make them up. They are out there. But conservative outlets are the only place you’ll see them. For their own reasons, the media just doesn’t want to tell voters about it. I’m afraid that the days of objective journalism, where events were reported and/or remembered, are long gone, that’s history. It has been replaced, for the last 15 years or so, with ‘news’ that generated by polls, which are generated by the media, to advance an agenda. The only poll that means squat is the one on Nov. 4th in the voting booth. If there is a landslide in Obama’s favor, it will be more a testament to the effectiveness of the media to shape the electorate than either of the candidates themselves.

    Meanwhile, I’m still fuming about the jump to socialism the House took today to soothe peoples fears about the economy. Talk about a rush to judgment.

  6. A draw is never a win for the McCain/Palin ticket. They are falling significantly behind. They need wins.

    The 24 hour cable news networks, with Fox on the right, MSNBC on the left, and CNN somewhere else, do make too big a deal out of everything, do overanalyse everything, are generally shoddy. I blame no one but ourselves, though, because they only act like that because we keep watching and making them money.

    I do think that Chuck Todd is a good guy. I don’t think he is beholden to any party or idea other than the numbers, and numberwise, we are looking at a landslide right now. Do I think it will stay that way through Nov. 4? Nope. But if the election were held tomorrow, Obama would win with a 310+ EV total, which is as close to landslide as it gets these days.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *