Media Criticism

I have been busting the chops of CNN anchors like Campbell Brown and Wolf Blitzer throughout the presidential primary season. Brown is vapid, Blitzer is a terrible debate moderator and the network brings on supporters of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain when thoughtful analysis is needed. CNN lucked into a good debate this evening from Austin, Texas due to the potential problem of a prolonged nominating process for the Democratic Party.

Any network who hosted this debate would have witnessed a heated contest between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Obama has momentum built upon since Super Tuesday while Clinton and her surrogates have made Texas the last line of defense. Anyone who thinks that a loss in Texas means that Senator Clinton will drop out does not understand her desire to reach the White House. I would like to take this sentence to say that I don’t think Clinton should drop out after Texas if she keeps it close in delegates after March 4th. My opinion is probably not the same as the opinions of Democratic operatives desperate to campaign against John McCain.

The words “silly season,” “plagiarism” and “experience” popped up frequently in the Austin debates. Hillary Clinton was flailing desperately at many points in the debate though she was strong early in the debate. Barack Obama seemed to build up steam throughout the debate as the line of questioning got more contentious. I liked Hillary’s promotion of green jobs as part of the stimulus package though her platitudes after the fact mean nothing in the end. The 90 minutes of debate got ugly in some parts and showed Democrats what they have to look forward to if the nominating process goes long.

I think that it is alright to air out these problems in public. The Democratic Party should swing through all 50 states and numerous territories to give every voter the chance to make up their mind. The successes of the Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections need to be confirmed by a presidential candidate that reflects the identity of rank-and-file voters. Democrats may not want a race that goes to the convention but it may be the best way to solidify the party’s strength for the next generation. A little clearing of detritus and old-style thinking caused by public scrutiny can make a party stronger than a party created by blind consensus.

The Republicans muddied their primary waters last weekend with a Vegas victory for Mitt Romney and a Southern rise for John McCain. The Democratic Party has an equally difficult process in choosing a candidate for the 2008 elections which seems to be a Democratic year. While the Republicans have the problem of multiple candidates who have regional difficulties, the Democrats are torn between the cold pragmatism of experience and the quick-burning light of change.

In recent days, Senators Clinton and Obama have alternated between barb trading and uneasy friendship in various public meetings. The tone of this evening’s debate in Myrtle Beach leaned more heavily to the former especially concerning the pasts of both candidates. Obama pointed out Clinton’s role as a “corporate lawyer” on the Wal-Mart board in Arkansas while Clinton spent an abundant amount of time pointing out Obama’s “Present” votes in the Illinois legislature. John Edwards seemed to be more relaxed than the other two which is a certainty achieved through a 4% showing in the Nevada caucuses.

I am not sure what the impact of an individual debate can have on a race considering the full-press coverage on stump speeches by CNN, MSNBC and C-SPAN. If the South Carolina debates told us anything about the Democratic field, it is that it will extend well beyond Super Tuesday. I can envision a John McCain-Mitt Romney fight after Super Tuesday in addition to the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton battle that was raging on stage. In both parties, candidates like Mike Huckabee and John Edwards will stay in for awhile to assert their influence. Huckabee can deliver an interesting group of voters to McCain or Romney while Edwards can parlay his delegates for a role in the next administration.

CNN has not learned from past debates on the importance of decorum. The temptation to let politicians loose is strong since the public wants answers from these candidates. The problem is that Clinton, Obama and Edwards don’t know their own limits. A politician is like a door-to-door salesman; one foot in the door can lead to an hour of talking. Wolf Blitzer said at the beginning that some of the answers may be less than the time allotted which seemed to get a smirk from all three candidates. We all know that a no-holds barred debate is going to take place no matter what; CNN should at least pretend to practice limits so that the public can criticize the candidates instead of the media for run-on arguments.

I am clearly behind the ball in responding to Wednesday’s CNN/YouTube debate with the Republican presidential candidates. I spent Thursday and Friday taking care of other topics that arose and I felt that a few full viewings of the debates would clear my head. I watched the debate twice in its entirety and feel that this endeavor may have taken a few years off my life. I am just hoping those are the bad years at the end of my life.

CNN got hundreds of YouTube questions and could have chosen a diverse range of topics to cover. The good people at CNN chose to pick questions asking how many guns the candidates own and addressing specific questions to candidates (I am thinking of the Mike Huckabee question about the death penalty). The most egregious error by CNN was focusing almost a third of the time on questions of immigration. My problem is not over the debate on immigration as the issue of guest workers and border security are worthwhile questions. I object to the Tancredo effort on each of the candidates and the tone of the conversation.

My problem with the YouTube debates for both parties is that technology is thought to equal full democracy. In the end, however, a major media outlet like CNN was able to reign in full democracy with its usually cock-eyed filter. Anderson Cooper spoke at the top of the debate about which YouTube videos would NOT be featured in the debate. CNN is guilty of vetting questions in the same way that candidates are guilty of packing their public events with supporters. Accessible democracy through technology should not mean an effort at purposeful mediocrity.

The winners and losers in the CNN/YouTube debate are pretty clear. Media darling Mike Huckabee was thoughtful in his answers in the midst of chaos and CNN got the ratings it so clearly wanted from this debacle. The losers were the American public and supposed frontrunners Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney. I cannot believe I spent this long thinking about this debate but it is part of my job as a media critic.

CNN’s latest primary debate with the Democratic candidates minus Mike Gravel demonstrates the network’s inability to function in the real world of politics. The location of the debate may have been disorienting as Wolf Blitzer stated that this was the first presidential debate in the state of Nevada. I know the bright lights and glitz of Las Vegas probably caught the eye of Blitzer and his rag tag group of talking heads but CNN’s “best political team in news” needs to shore up a few major weaknesses.

Blitzer got blown up at several points by the candidates as he tried to play the role of harried debate moderator. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were penned into a melee by questions from the insufferable Campbell Scott and John Roberts, the hair-do of all hair-dos. Obama was able to push Blitzer aside while going after Clinton while Senator Biden and Dennis Kucinich tried to squeeze in some time in front of the CNN cameras. I am convinced that leaving aside the moderator for this debate would have been fine because the boos and cheers of the crowd would have done a better job than Wolf.

I think most media observers would agree that the combination of moderated questions and audience questions (which only look like they are spontaneous) needed to be tinkered. The final question to Hillary Clinton was sexist but it was also an indication of what is wrong with this election. Dennis Kucinich was asked a question about UFOs and Mike Gravel a question about a failed business deal unrelated to his political career in past debates. A woman that was clearly a Bill Richardson supporter got in a birthday wish and a softball question regarding contractors in Iraq. Much like the YouTube debate in the summer, CNN’s efforts at democratic involvement in the debate process needs significant tweaking.

As a side note, I would like to thank CNN for putting on the least objective post-debate show ever. Space alien James Carville joined Anderson Cooper to speak to the success of Hillary Clinton. I had the sound off but I could tell that Carville was singing the praises of Senator Clinton due to his relationship with the Clinton family. I say all of this having already made my decision on a candidate but I know that many Americans aren’t even close to making a decision. CNN is doing a poor service to undecided primary voters by offering up bad questions, disorganized responses and skewed spin room analysis.

In the last few years, the accessibility of blogging has grown. Along with it, so has the community of people who can now publish whatever they want whenever they want. Some are immensely popular and may even prove to be excellent resources. Others are just personal places to vent and rant. Either way, there’s little question that blogs have changed the way we receive information.

Blogs have changed the way we view the media in a few ways. One, journalism is more transparent. With all of the commentary floating around about certain events, it’s easier to spot bias and spin in the media. Two, I think people are inspired to think and write.

Before the blogging era, only a select group of people could publish information for all the world to read. Now, anybody with an e-mail address and the writing ability of a squirrel can start his/her own website. This has advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, it’s possible to access a wealth of information and analysis never before available. However, the disadvantages to a completely unfiltered blogosphere are twofold. One, the sheer number of blogs makes finding the right one difficult; you can find yourself wading through thousands of posts that say little more than “I HATE BUSH LOLZ” or “STUPID HIPPY LIBERALS OMFG”. This is the downside to letting literally anybody publish anything: the quality of content certainly decreases. Two, with no content filter or editing, there’s no guarantee that anything you find on a blog (including this one) is true.

However, I think the most important aspect of the interaction of blogs and the media stems from this disadvantage. It’s common knowledge that ABC News, CNN, and Fox News are better resources than, say, this blog. People, therefore, have to be more discerning about their sources of information, especially when they read news online. This improves our interaction with the media in two ways. One, the days of “it’s written down; therefore, it’s true” are over. It’s easy to question mainstream journalism now that there are so many alternative sources. Two, because news organizations are businesses, they necessarily respond to the needs of the consumer. As the consumer becomes more aware of the media and their faults, he/she will demand higher quality journalism. The news sources that deliver will stay alive; those that provide low-quality journalism will eventually go out of business.

Of course, the negative side to this argument is that the people don’t always demand the highest quality journalism. Celebrity gossip is always popular, and the blogging world only fuels that fire. Look how many blogs we have at 451 Press dedicated to celebrities and pop culture.

We’ll continue to write, and we hope that people will continue to read.

Blogs, Blogging, Journalism, Media