Thursday, April 17, 2008

Astounding

By Carl

The major gripe among the blogosphere today: ABC News spent way, way too much time drilling Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama about their stumbles on the campaign trail instead of focusing on policy issues.

Bloggers at the liberal Daily Kos (which has a heavy Obama following) dedicated the most electronic ink against ABC’s Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, the debate moderators.


One of the writers, Hunter, went so far as to say their handling of the debate was “so deeply embarrassing to the nation that it will be pointed to, in future books and documentary works, as a prime example of the collapse of the American media into utter and complete substanceless, into self-celebrated vapidity, and into a now-complete inability or unwillingness to cover the most important affairs of the nation to any but the most shallow of depths.”

Admittedly, I did not watch the debates last night (Go Rangers! Go Mets!), but how many debates have we had on the issues since December of 2007? 20? 30? 300?

Have any of them drawn any type of sharp contrast between the two candidates?

No. So what's the point?

The debate was clearly structured to try to draw some drama out of the proceedings, to put both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the hot seats about something and to let people see how they handle the stresses and strains of the campaign trail.

In that respect, it was a bit of an eye-opener, from nearly all accounts: Hillary Clinton handled herself like a pro, while Barack Obama could barely contain his frustration and contempt.

Guess maybe he knows now why a typical white person in Pennsylvania might cling to his religion and his guns, huh?

The only reasoned critique I've read of the debate comes from
Will Bunch:

You implied throughout the broadcast that you wanted to reflect the concerns of voters in Pennsylvania. Well, I'm a Pennsylvanian voter, and so are my neighbors and most of my friends and co-workers. You asked virtually nothing that reflected our everyday issues -- trying to fill our gas tanks and save for college at the same time, our crumbling bridges and inadequate mass transit, or the root causes of crime here in Philadelphia. In fact, there almost isn't enough space -- and this is cyberspace, where room is unlimited -- to list all the things you could have asked about but did not, from health care to climate change to alternative energy to our policy toward China to the deterioration of Afghanistan to veterans' benefits to improving education. You ignored virtually everything that just happened in what most historians agree is one of the worst presidencies in American history, including the condoning of torture and the trashing of the Constitution, although to be fair you also ignored the policy concerns of people on the right, like immigration issues.

Fair enough.

So let me ask the journalists involved, and the bloggers and even Mr. Bunch: what have you been covering for the past seven months?

How many blogposts, columns, news analyses, and prime-time segments have been devoted to any of the issues that Bunch delineates?

Not nearly as many about the debacle in Afghanistan over the past year, I'd wager, as have been written over Obama's "bitter" comment in just these past five days.

Even Bunch, later in his column, points out how many column inches have been devoted to Reverend Wright, and the Bosnia trip and Obama's foot-in-mouth disease... does anyone else wonder how an eloquent man can have so many "misspokes" and "inartful phrasings"? What kind of scam is Obama running on us?... but one wonders why so many column inches haven't been devoted to, say, the
PTSD problems of returning Iraqi and Afghani vets?

I picked that topic because, you know, Katrina and I at Simply Left Behind have both been all over it these past four years. I'd bet not many other blogs have been.

It's kind of disingenuous to whine about ABC's debate format when in fact, they are merely responding to the vox populi: all of us, myself included, have harped on these niggling issues at the expense of the larger stories around us.

For myself, I claim a lack of time and an interest in increasing my hit counter.

And so what does that tell you, all of you who are complaining about ABC's dismal performance? People aren't going to read about oil prices. People are going to read about Obama's bigotry and Clinton's prevarications.

End of discussion. Now shut the hell up about it.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Labels: , , , ,

Digg!

27 Comments:

  • You and I obviously disagree on Obama vs. Clinton, Carl, but I'm with you all the way on this.

    By Blogger Michael J.W. Stickings, at 4:40 PM  

  • Good post Carl. I'd agree that Blogtopia has become almost as bad as the MSM in driving dumb narratives instead of focusing on the issues. I complain about it regularly and try to keep to issue oriented posts but they get lost in the din when one of these pseudo-scandals explode. The White House is getting away with a whole bunch of stuff while a lot of big bloggers are busy driving traffic with horserace trivia.

    By Blogger Libby Spencer, at 6:44 AM  

  • I think it is telling that Obama is such a whinner about some hard stuff - if he is going to stand up to the Republican Machine in the fall he had better soon grow a tough skin. The Oval Office is no place for a whinner.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:00 PM  

  • My full response to the debate is here: http://politicolondon.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/whatisjudgment/

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:58 PM  

  • You write a whole blog post on a devate you admit you never saw!?!? This is the worst blog I have ever seen, and it is telling that th NY Times would quote you about this debate never having seen it.

    Liberalism unbound????? more like liberalism not-found!

    You should quit while you are behind and go get a job at ABC, they'd love your brainless banter.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:26 PM  

  • "Admittedly, I did not watch the debates last night (Go Rangers! Go Mets!), but how many debates have we had on the issues since December of 2007? 20? 30? 300?"

    Funny. You didn't watch the debate but feel qualified to comment on how it was moderated.

    Great post Carl!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:28 PM  

  • Blogging a debate you didn't watch?!?
    (Go idiot! Go moron!)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:36 PM  

  • "The Decency League, dedicated to stopping all sexual behaviour..."

    Don't sweat it carl. You were merely cited\thrown under the bus by some feckless newspaper guy.I can totally understand not watching the debates. (Go Caps!) Call me cynical, but the hackjob the MSM offered us pretty much made par. I mean, who maintains the status quo moreso than our friends in the Corporate Media? It's their freaking job. whats that? news and information what? where ya from son? not from around here, i speck.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:25 PM  

  • Carl, watch the debate first and then comment. Jesus.

    By Anonymous Marc, at 8:00 PM  

  • I think Obama kicked Hillary's butt in the debate! Of course I didn't watch it, so I could be full of shit.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:14 PM  

  • May I defend Carl, here? He may not have watched the debate, but he obviously knew what happened. He didn't watch it live. That's all. I think some of you are reading what he said at the beginning the post and taking it out of context. Come on. It's not like watching it live was the only way to know anything about it. It's been covered all over the place, the transcript is available, clips are available, etc. Carl is more than qualified to comment on it. If you don't like his take on it, fine. But don't think he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's one of the smartest bloggers around.

    By Blogger Michael J.W. Stickings, at 10:18 PM  

  • And to the anonymous commenter above who attacks this blog: The worst blog you've ever seen, huh? Really? Are you that delusional? Why don't you take the time to read what we do here before making such stupid comments.

    By Blogger Michael J.W. Stickings, at 10:27 PM  

  • I don't think this was a matter of not watching the debate live, rather it doesn't sound like he watched it AT ALL: "In that respect, it was a bit of an eye-opener, from nearly all accounts..." That makes it sound like an "analysis" of something he didn't even bother to look into firsthand, like those awful Amazon "reviews" of books that people write having never read the book.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:48 PM  

  • "This is the worst blog I have ever seen."

    Dude, you need to get out more.

    Did you even bother to have a look around the place? Michael has put together a great team of bloggers and I really don't appreciate you, or anyone, denigrating the team.

    And, name calling? You may not agree with Carl, but at least he's making an argument. Just grow the fuck up.

    By Blogger creature, at 11:37 PM  

  • "This is the worst blog I have ever seen."

    Dude, you need to get out more.

    Did you even bother to have a look around the place? Michael has put together a great team of bloggers and I really don't appreciate you, or anyone, denigrating the team.

    And, name calling? You may not agree with Carl, but at least he's making an argument. Just grow the fuck up."

    This is whining.

    Show me anywhere in the debate where Obama said anyting like that.

    There is a difference between asking tough questions and idiotic questions. Stephanopolis question "Senator Obama, is Reverand Wright patriotic?" or whatever the nonsense was is about as stupid a question as anybody can ask.

    Asking a genuinely tough question like "how can pay for your campaign promises when the tax inceases you support won't bring in anywhere near the money to pay for them?" That is tough and fair.

    The problem is, nearly all American political reporters are just plain stupid. They clearly can not handle the complexity of debate.

    So, instead a tough question for them is quoting a Republican talking point about Obama refusing to wear a flag pin.

    The problem wasn't that Obama was frustrated, the problem was that he didn't call Stephanopolis and Gibson blithering idiots who dont' their privaleged positions.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:16 AM  

  • Couple corrections to previous post:

    The problem is, nearly all American political reporters are just plain stupid. They clearly can not handle the complexity of POLICY debate.

    So, instead a tough question for them is quoting a Republican talking point about Obama refusing to wear a flag pin.

    The problem wasn't that Obama was frustrated, the problem was that he didn't call Stephanopolis and Gibson blithering idiots who dont' DESERVE their privaleged positions.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:18 AM  

  • "He didn't watch it live. That's all."

    That is not what he said. He admitted he was relying on other's "accounts."

    But if we overlook the fact that he is commenting on a debate he only heard about and deal with the substance we are left with this:

    "It's kind of disingenuous to whine about ABC's debate format when in fact, they are merely responding to the vox populi: all of us, myself included, have harped on these niggling issues at the expense of the larger stories around us.

    For myself, I claim a lack of time and an interest in increasing my hit counter.

    And so what does that tell you, all of you who are complaining about ABC's dismal performance? People aren't going to read about oil prices. People are going to read about Obama's bigotry and Clinton's prevarications."

    The National Enquirer Defense from "one of the smartest bloggers around."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:24 AM  

  • Anonymous, I am not defending ABC in any way. If you read some of the other posts here at The Reaction you would see our opinions are diverse. I am objecting to your name calling and venom. If you don't like what Carl said, just leave. With your blog bar set so low I'm sure there are plenty of places that would appreciate your comments and keep you entertained.

    By Blogger creature, at 12:54 AM  

  • May I defend Carl, here?

    Sure, if you want to demonstrate that you are as stupid and intellectually dishonest as he is.

    By Anonymous truth machine, at 3:02 AM  

  • You write a whole blog post on a devate you admit you never saw!?!? This is the worst blog I have ever seen

    And yet, you support a candidate who criticises a war he's never fought in.

    How ironic!

    The rest of your post can now be filed in the same trash can as a McCain speech...

    By Blogger Carl, at 6:18 AM  

  • Stephanopolis question "Senator Obama, is Reverand Wright patriotic?" or whatever the nonsense was is about as stupid a question as anybody can ask.

    Really? I think that's a fairly clever question to ask about a man who a) damned America to hell and b) was Obama's spiritual adviser for twenty years, an advisor he personally chose (e.g. was not born to his church).

    After all, I bet you had great sport with Pastor Hagee when his comments about Catholics came out, but you wondered why the hell McCain would actively seek his endorsement, didn't you?

    So if you apply that standard to McCain, you don't give an asshole like Obama a free pass, do you? After all, HE is whom you want representing YOU and do YOU hate America?

    Presumably not. Presumably, like me, you want to see America do a lot better than it has, and that means we hold Obama to at least as high a standard as we hold McCain.

    And yet, for some reason, you refuse to see the log in your own eye.

    Now, as Creature said, shut the fuck up.

    By Blogger Carl, at 6:23 AM  

  • That is not what he said. He admitted he was relying on other's "accounts."

    That's true. I did not and still have not watched the debate.

    And your point is...?

    I'm sure you must be such a man of the world that you could, say, fly your private jet into New Orleans to experience first hand the devastation of sitting on a roof with the "po' folk" so that you were in a position to criticize Bush and Brownie.

    Aren't you? Or did you just seize an opportunity to speak out on an issue using an event that you didn't experience at all, except thru news accounts, to slam a President who, rightfully, deserved it?

    Same situation here, and if you can't wrap your Orange Godded Brain around that concept, I have two words for you:

    Blow. Me.

    By Blogger Carl, at 6:27 AM  

  • Clearly Carl is not handling his moment in the spotlight anywhere near as well as Senator Obama has.

    I personally know very little about McCain and Haugee. If McCain sought his endorsement, it may raise questions, just as there are some valid questions regarding Obama's association with Wright. However, in both cases, Haugee and Wright deserve to be looked over their entire careers and views.

    Some have said that is like saying a murderer should be let go if they have done some good things as well, however, the analogy fails. A murderer is being judged on the basis of 1.an act, 2.an illegal act. In the case of Wright, all he did was speak. Given that, we should look at everything he has to say and the context of his so-called hate filled speech. This is especially so regarding Obama having a relationship with him. We all have likely have friends who say or do things we don't like, yet we don't break our friendship with them. It is hardly fair or accurate if that thing we don't like suddenly becomes the sole basis on which our relationship with them is judged.

    The question is idiotic because
    1.it has the tone of "when did you stop beating your wife."

    2.It's meaningless. Since when did liberals start believing that if you criticize your country you aren't patriotic. If it's the use of the phrase "God damn" that troubles you, I would remind you God damned Israel and Judah to be scattered by their enemies, and yet God still considered the Jews his chosen people. Just because Reverand Wright called for God to damn America, does not mean that Reverand Wright does not love America.

    3.It's even stupider than it sounds. Remembering back, the question was actually "Senator Obama, do you consider yourself more patriotic than Jeremiah Wright?" And little Georgie boy asked the question something like 3times. How the hell is anybody supposed to measure something like that?

    it's just plain idiotic. There are plenty of actual policy issues that the moderators could have sought to go after the candidates over if they wanted to create uncomfortable moments that would have allowed the public to see discussion of relevant issues, yet at the same time, the character of the candidates would have come through.

    I already mentioned the tax/spending issues.

    Another would be "Senator, you said you would abrogate NAFTA if it wasn't renogoatiated. The President of Mexico has already said he has no interest reopening the agreement. Would you seriously abrogate the agreement given that hundreds of thousands of U.S jobs are tied to trade with Mexico ?"

    Then you have the issue that has become far more serious recently given rising food prices of ethanol and ethanol subsidies "Senator, do you think that turning corn into ethanol, and the government's policy of subsidizing that has turned out to be a mistake given the rising price of many agricultural products? There have been food riots in many countries around the world, and many Mexicans risk falling into poverty as their standard of living declines."

    Two current policy issues that have relevance to the lives of millions of people. Not only are these issues the public deserves an answer to, but in both cases we could see how the candidates try to negotiate around the various special interests inherent in them.
    In NAFTA, you get a window into how the candidates view dealing with fellow foreign leaders, and you see how they play off the people who have been hurt by free trade agreements vs. the people who have been helped by them.

    In the second issue, you see how the candidates regard emerging potential crisis around the world (the food riots), as well as playing off the concerns of environmentalists, farmers and the food buying public.

    It's the candidates' character when it comes to public issues that is of real concern, not silliness over 'who is more patriotic'.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:16 AM  

  • I'm sorry but "Anonymous" is mostly right...this isn't a very good blog. It's not the worst I've ever seen, but when you all take yourselves as seriously as The Reaction folks seem to, then you've got to expect to get called out on occasion. You're all clearly a bunch of friends, like each other, probably hang out, and so forth, and that's cool, but when you go out of your way to defend a colleague by parsing what they say in a dishonest way, and then encourage your readers to get lost when they point out the disingenuous nature of your defense, well, you kinda lose credibility. But no need to worry, most of us new visitors like me will wander off in a bit, especially when y'all clearly don't want us around. I think a whole lot of people found out about your blog from that insipid post by Tobin Harnshaw at The Times. Apparently "Carl" and David Brooks are political soulmates of a kind. I'm sure you're very proud. Anyway, enjoy the traffic while it lasts.

    Lastly, from what I've seen from Mr. Carl, the only sign of good judgment he's betrayed is being a Gooner. Well, every club's got its share of dodgy supporters.

    By Blogger Sam, at 1:40 AM  

  • Actually, Sam, I'm not aware that any of us have met, apart from reading each other's blogposts.

    Talk about prejudice!

    By Blogger Carl, at 8:07 AM  

  • Final "Anonymous".

    I repeat THE point I made orginally: in which of the previous two dozen or so debates were NONE of the issues you raised talked about, and no discernable differences perceived?

    QED

    Now shut the fuck up about it. It's not my problem you can't read past your own ignorance.

    By Blogger Carl, at 8:08 AM  

  • Sam, that's one of the stupidest and most presumptuous comments I've ever seen. You obviously know nothing of what we're about, have never bothered to take the time to read us -- not just here but at our other blogs -- and are only criticizing because Carl said something you don't like. I really don't care if you only know us through this NYT link (which is only one of many high-profile links we've gotten over the years, but I won't bother taking the time to prove you wrong). Maybe if you get out more, you'll figure out that the blogosphere is more than Kos and a few A-listers.

    By Blogger Michael J.W. Stickings, at 1:22 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home