CNN, Palin, and Obama's dog

CNN has been focusing a lot on Palin lately, such as talking about her calling to put aside "extreme partisanship" to get work done or her complimenting Obama or when she called the attacks against her "cruel" and "cowardly." There were many, many more pieces about her, and I can't help thinking with coverage like this that she is just another celebrity to them and not a political figure.

There has been some real coverage of Obama, such as him being asked to focus on Darfur and some of his lobby rules that could benefit nonprofits, but then there are also the more "fluffy" pieces, such as the packages and articles about his dog. For example, this video/article link says it is the "more pressing issue" to find the perfect puppy for his daughters. I'm not sure how people can think puppies are more important than what's going on in the world now .......

NR on centrism

In the article "Center? What Center?" James G. Gimpel goes against everything that the mainstream media is saying about the country being a centrist country by saying we are not. All the mainstream media outlets seem to be saying lately that Obama needs to be careful with what he does in office because we're such a centrist country, and this article says that there is no coherent center to which voters there adhere. 

"The research suggests that those who at various times occupy this center, often described as moderates or independents, are not very knowledgeable about or interested in politics. They do not follow campaign coverage closely, are inconsistent in their policy views, and are often not able to identify what positions are liberal or conservative."

The article then goes on to say that it's foolish to move campaigns toward the center, since the "center" is never really fixed.

I think this is a good article because it does not just follow the trend that the other outlets have been saying lately, but instead has new ideas that I think at least make sense. 

NR and their defeat

NR was obviously upset with the results of Tuesday night, since it is a conservative publication. But even so, not all of their articles completely bashed Obama and whined about losing.

"Race in the city" by Mark Hemingway was about the response of Washington D.C. to Obama winning. He talks about how the young people gathered in front of the White House aren't angry or focusing on their hatred of Bush, they just keep yelling "Obama! Obama!" The reporter attributes this to the percentage of the crowd that is black, and how this election was a symbol and reason to celebrate. Even though he doesn't agree with much of Obama's policies, Hemingway admits that there is a reason to celebrate because the country has come such a long way.

"The Children Gather" by David Freddoso was about the happiness of the crowd in Grant Park in Chicago as the results came in. He showed how much of the crowd was well-educated about the election, and how some were happy Obama was elected because of his race and some wanted more party allegiance. It really showed the hope of the people throughout the night, and it was touching to read some of the responses of people that were so idealistic about the future. At the end Freddoso says that he thinks that Obama is merely a man and politician and that people are putting him too high on a pedestal, but he just says people will learn the hard way in time.

"Hope amid the ruins" by the editors was about the voters' rejection of the central aspects of liberalism. The editors say that the people clearly rejected what the Republicans have been doing, and that Bush and McCain basically brought it on themselves by not understanding the problems of the average Americans, their response to the economy, botching up Hurrican Katrina, and many other policies and responses. The editors call for the conservatives to work with the Democrats in Washington and to devise an agenda that will help middle class Americans.

NR and networks calling the elections

Today NR had an article called "County by County: Why wait for the networks to call the race when you can do it yourself." The article started out well talking about how everyone wants to know the results before they are in and that there is no way to tell how accurate the numbers are before they are finally counted. Then the article gave a website for following the election by county and finding out the results on your own, so I went to the website and who was it sponsored by?? Fox News. I should have guessed this since NR is a conservative publication. But even so, I don't know if I can trust such a website sponsored by a network that pronounced Bush the president in 2000 way before the results were clear.

Voters prefer pretty candidates????

So I just went to CNN's website, and the headline of the first article was "Study: Voters prefer pretty female candidates." The article says that women running for offices need to appear both competent and attractive, which the article uses as an excuse to justify all of Palin's spending on clothes. Then the article says men don't have to worry about being attractive as much, which the article uses an excuse to question why John Edwards needed his expensive haircut. 

This article is completely absurd!!! It so obviously is trying to make excuses for Palin for why she spent so much money on clothes, and then goes and slams Edwards for trying to make himself look better. Furthermore, what is the point of focusing on how the candidates look?? Isn't it more important to write articles focusing on what the candidates would do in office or what their policies will be instead of focusing on how the candidates look??

CNN and Palin the Diva

Wolf Blitzer's "The Situation Room" today focused mainly on the McCain and Palin camp. There was by far more coverage of those two than Obama, and even less coverage of Biden because they seem to forget that he exists at all. 

First, he focused on the horse race and the three (Obama, McCain, and Palin) campaigning in PA. There was no mention of Biden until Palin made some comments about his tax policies. Dana Bash, who was narrating this part, called McCain the "gritty warrior," which I think definitely plays on the maverick narrative. Wolf then went on for a while about McCain and Palin, but when it came time for Obama, he talked substantially less. 

The next part of the piece was "It's all about Palin." Wolf talked about how the media is so obsessed with Palin and she is now being called a "diva" and getting more air time. He talked about the tension between Palin and McCain because they are both "mavericks" and have some different ideas, and then they showed her defending her clothes and attributing them to the RNC. Some pundits that were interviewed said how a lot of the criticism to Palin is demeaning to women and is sexist, and then Wolf talked about the finger-pointing within the McCain camp at mishandling Palin.

The whole part about Palin being a diva was so ironic, because they are just perpetuating the matter by giving her even more air time through this segment. It is so obvious that the media is giving her so much more air time and is obsessed with her, why do they have to go through it even more and keep repeating it? And also, it is not demeaning to women to criticize another woman. Just because people don't like her policies doesn't mean they are criticizing them because she is a woman, it just means they disagree with her. 

Is negative campaigning good for the country?

After listening to John G. Geer speak yesterday about how negative campaigning is good for the country, I couldn't help but disagree. It's not that I disagreed with his basic argument that negative campaigning brings issues to the forefront and causes candidates to react to each other's claims, thus making it good. I think as a concept, this is fine. If this happened in our politics today, there would be nothing wrong with negative campaigning. What I disagree with is that candidates hardly ever do this. Most of the negative campaigning I have seen in this election are either exaggerated claims based on a tiny piece of fact or outrageous claims that are funny to even think about being true (example: Obama and sex education for kindergartners).

I don't think candidates saying blatant lies or stretching the truth are good for anyone, because all this does is leave voters confused about which side to believe and cause the media to harp on the negative campaigning and lies, thus keeping issues out of the media by focusing on campaign tactics.

That being said, if candidates were to do negative campaigning without using lies and confusing people, like NR did in "Believers in Barack: Apparently, Obama-love is blind," I don't think I'd have quite so much trouble with it.

In this article, Thomas Sowell lays out the facts for why he thinks people should not vote for Obama. He says that Obama is being too vague with his "change" campaign, people don't know enough about him or what he has done on issues of crime, education, financial institutions, or Iran. He goes on to talk about things we do know about Obama, such as he opposed stricter regulations on Fannie Mae, was the second-largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae, and then sought the advise of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. This article presented facts, not exaggerated or blatant lies. This kind of coverage is what should be shown for both sides, because it gives voters what they need to know, not confuses them.