It was the first year I got to hear of the mainstream media's liberal bias. Though I am still inclined to think that blaming the media is a sure sign a candidate is grasping, I am for the first time also beginning to think there's something to this. For my unabashedly liberal friends, a few caveats before you get too excited:
- Yes, there are now plenty of conservative options on the mainstream media menu--Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and plenty of others.
- Yes, all of these news outlets and commentators claim to be not part of the mainstream media themselves, but instead a response to it.
- Yes, it's tripe.
The simple fact is that if you're getting your news or commentary from people, there's some kind of bias to it. Jim Lehrer once told Stephen Colbert in this hilarious Colbert Report interview that his report added only "the flavor of neutrality." Apart from Lehrer and the late great Tim Russert, I can't name too many people I've seen doing TV journalism whose biases weren't very apparent after just a few minutes. Print journalism's record isn't much better lately. The short explanation, as I see it, is that too many people simply ignore facts that don't support their bias--or position--on an issue. The liberal and conservative mainstream media are equally guilty.
So what does this have to do with the "culture war?" Regardless of whether you like or dislike the Sarah Palin pick, the public reaction to it has been revealing. Conservatives of nearly all stripes--wary of McCain on his own merits--have rallied to his cause and been stalwart defenders of Palin's credentials. Check out this clip from The Daily Show for a great example. Liberals, or progressives if you prefer, have pitched a very high quality fit in the public square, not only dismissing her qualifications to serve but going so far as to assert that her acceptance of the nomination must mean she is not sufficiently dedicated to her responsibilities as a mother. Can you imagine the same left that stormed the barricades for women's rights a generation ago now trying to tell us that it just shouldn't be this woman? Fortunately, you don't have to. It happened last week right in front of you. Don't believe me? Read this article by Michelle Cottle, or this one by Margaret Wente.
While some of the the conservative response to the liberal coverage has been just as ridiculous, some of it has also been quite reasonable, and could be instructive if the liberals turn down the volume and listen a bit--both to conservative commentators and to some of what their own side are putting out. Here are a few samples, one from Bill Kristol, one from Clive Crook, and one from Michael Graham. (The Clive Crook article is particularly good--certainly worth the trouble of obtaining a free login at FT.com.) Truth be told, I'm not even certain Graham is conservative from reading his article. If he's not, his article is only that much more instructive. Finally, for my view of all this, try this article by Kay S. Hymowitz, in which she argues we'd all be well served by calming down and just evaluating Palin on her merits.
By the way, FactCheck.org is a great source for checking on both sides. They'll give you the facts and the context straight up. They appear to be keeping a running tally on the sliming of Sarah Palin . . . as well as the sliming by Sarah Palin.
3 comments:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/info/kilkenny.asp
Have you read the letter Kilkenny wrote, yet? Democrat or not, you can't ignore that this letter was written by a person who seems to know Palin better than most of us do from merely reading up on her or watching her speeches. I will agree she seems highly ambitious and without a lot of experience, but as long as she has some degree of humility and concern for the direction of our country to temper that, the pair MIGHT be OK. But personally neither candidate (or running mate for that matter) is an ideal pick. Unfortunately since our country is so polarized party-wise, voting for a third party is essentially 1) ineffective and 2) gets you confused looks.
Chelsea
Have people been harping on the race issue with Obama as much as they have with gender/Palin?
It all depends on focus, and granted a lot of the focus on Palin is because of the hype and her recent selection as running mate.
I agree, though, as with any particular but irrelevant facet to any person, judging or misjudging someone because of their gender or race is... not smart.
That article you posted in one of the emails about the readiness of a candidate to be President, not so much by experience but by ability to respond to all sorts of situations, was interesting. I think that definitely is a valid point to any candidate being able to handle the Presidency. Of course, a lot of that ability to respond comes from experience, as well. As the military tries to teach us (train!!).
Another unsubstantiated opinion of mine is that a candidate should have a sort of vision (beyond the canned "Hope" and "Change" mantras) for the country. It seems irrelevant to legitimize your qualifications by discussing your stance on a certain polarizing issue: gays, abortion, borders. I almost want to go: you're missing the point! Because it seems to undermine the intelligence of the American people when 1) the media sensationalizes the election in order to excite and involve Americans and 2) when candidates go back and forth on a given issue, craftily opposing each other and making snarky remarks. It seems to be standing an inch away from a tree instead of seeing the whole forest. Again, using certain issues for debate are "substantial," I mean, you can get pretty theoretical about a vision for America.
It reminds me of Paradise Lost when the devils are sitting around hashing out ideas for how to most effectively undermine God, and one goes: All out war!!!! another goes: peace! Let's repent, and go back to God, then Beelzebub comes up with the most innovative way: let's corrupt Man. Especially at a time like this (I personally am afraid for our country), we need someone who will stop either 1) maintaining status quo or 2) going directly against status quo, and realizing that there is more to be done as President than saying yay or nay on any given issue. I think that's the biggest thing that irks me about the debates.
Ron Paul has it right. I couldn't hold back. He has a true vision for where this country should be headed, but his support base is so small. He was a bright, educated, thinking candidate, with all the care and concern required as President. He's not in it for his ego (McCain wanting to "confront" Georgia; please), but because of the sense of urgency he feels that the current state of our country has instilled in him. We need a little more "theoretical" and less substantial at this point I think. I think extreme-r measures should be called upon.
Anyway, enough about that. I disagree with a lot of the points I read in a couple of the 'female' articles you posted. I do agree; however, that being a true feminist is by defining yourself LESS by feminism. Ideally feminism is to get away from having to fight or support someone because of their gender. Equal rights are in place to give women the chance to earn or lose things by merit. It is simply a foundational platform. It's not GIRL POWER or DOWN WITH THE MAN. Women have the same obligation to public service (or whatever duty) that men do... motherhood is a tricky one, though.
I've read the Kilkenny letter. I'm not ready to discount it, and I'm not jumping to any conclusions based on it either. Short version, I'm not ready to make any decisions based on a sample size of one. If Sarah Palin has an approval rating of 80%, she has a disapproval rating of 20%. If Kilkenny is the one out of five who doesn't like Palin (and it would appear that she is), then there you go.
I agree that both presidential and both VP candidates are mortal. And I'm with you on third parties--see my remarks on the front page of the BLOG regarding Libertarians.
And anybody who's met my mother or my wife knows I'm with you on the feminism piece.
Post a Comment