HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Nov. 3, 2004 The election reflected exactly how I view things. I favored Bush over Kerry, clearly, but I have enough reservations about Bush that I wouldn’t have given him more than a three-point edge. In fact, it’s fair to say that I was more against Kerry than in favor of Bush. Had the Democrats nominated a more moderate candidate, I’d have probably voted Democrat. As for Bush, I agree that we should have gone to war. I agree that we had to do something about Iraq. Nevertheless, I don’t like the idea of our soldiers as sitting ducks over there, and I want Bush to do something about that. I’m happy that Iraq is holding democratic elections in January, and that’s all well and fine, but we can’t leave our soldiers where they are now. Do the job or don’t do it, but don’t sit there waiting to be shot. I am deliriously happy about the way it played out; I mean the process, not so much the result. Exit polls? Useless. Soros's money? Wasted. MoveOn.org? Springsteen concerts? Who cares? Jon Stewart’s satire? Funny, but meant nothing. Media gotchas and last minute surprises? Didn’t matter. It would have killed me to endure this country if Bush’s facial grimaces during the first debate sealed the election. As I read and watch TV, the analysts are surprised to discover that the issues trumped everything, as it should be. People voted because they either supported the war, or opposed it. Moral values counted. Issues trumped everything else. The rest was noise. The petty political storms turned out to be pacifiers for the “professional” political operatives and pundits. It gave the pundits something to play with, to keep them occupied, while ordinary citizens grappled with the deeper issues. We are still unable, so long as TV relies on sound bytes, to have a competent national discussion about important issues. Network analysts deal in 30 seconds, and that’s just not long enough to hold a rational discussion. Maybe, just maybe, the networks will catch on to the idea that important issues need more time than they’re willing to give. After all, the results have surprised the major media for three straight elections. If the results surprise you once, that’s one thing … but three elections in a row? Someone has to draw the short straw and whisper in the network’s ear – time for a change. Doesn’t it strike anyone that reality isn’t where the major media says it is? Maybe, just maybe, there’s a lucrative market for news that isn’t based on the now-discredited perspective of the Big Media. You may think that Fox News is the solution, but they were just as surprised as the Big Three, because they approached the election in the same way (only with different biases). They have a more conservative agenda, but the way they covered the election was identical to the others. Throughout the early evening last night, they were just as skeptical about Bush’s chances as anyone else. Carville and Begala shout and toss off one-liners, but Hannity and O’Reilly do exactly the same. Issues matter, but to cover them properly takes time and patience. Instead of daily talking points, isn’t there a market for guests who can make an honest, extended analysis? This is different from C-Span, which usually just eavesdrops on talking heads giving speeches. Instead, why can’t we have analysts who can devote an hour (or so) on their analysis, allowing them every multimedia prop they want, and allow them to make their best case? Let them include video or graphics, but have them address the issues as fully as possible. Allow no interruptions, and give them a full chance to make their case. Then, allow other points of view the same opportunity. Then, like in true debates, allow the participants to go back and forth for as long as they wish. Maybe, just maybe, instead of fighting to a standstill, maybe each side can actually learn things from each other. It won’t happen that night on TV, but if you keep addressing the issues over time (as humans do, instead of TV shows’ thirty- minute lifespans) you may eventually break through to a better perspective. You might not realize it immediately, but that’s how humans learn. You may think this is impractical, and maybe it isn’t the sexiest TV. Then again, could it be any worse than pundits acting surprised, time after time after time? After all, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing every time, and yet being surprised by the same result. Isn't it embarrassing to watch the pundits prove their insanity, every election? ------------ About the author: KC Mulville is a computer programmer, a happy husband and father of four, and holds several degrees in philosophy. Email KC Mulville: kcmulville@hotmail.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
