We can play my favorite blog game: what do these two stories have to do with each other?
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent “bitter” gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin — while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former ’60s radical — a question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton’s husband pardoned two other ’60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.
More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and — you name it. Gibson only got excited complaining that someone might raise his capital gains tax. Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. Talking heads on other networks followed up by not pressing that point either. The crowd booed Gibson near the end. Why didn’t every other responsible journalist on TV?
Oh, let’s pile on - here’s Mitchell’s buddy Will Bunch:
It’s hard to know where to begin with this, less than an hour after you signed off from your Democratic presidential debate here in my hometown of Philadelphia, a televised train wreck that my friend and colleague Greg Mitchell has already called, quite accurately, “a shameful night for the U.S. media.” It’s hard because — like many other Americans — I am still angry at what I just witnesses, so angry that it’s hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking. Look, I know that “media criticism” — especially when it’s one journalist speaking to another — tends to be a genteel, colleagial thing, but there’s no genteel way to say this.
With your performance tonight — your focus on issues that were at best trivial wastes of valuable airtime and at worst restatements of right-wing falsehoods, punctuated by inane “issue” questions that in no way resembled the real world concerns of American voters — you disgraced my profession of journalism, and, by association, me and a lot of hard-working colleagues who do still try to ferret out the truth, rather than worry about who can give us the best deal on our capital gains taxes. But it’s even worse than that. By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself. Indeed, if I were a citizen of one of those nations where America is seeking to “export democracy,” and I had watched the debate, I probably would have said, “no thank you.” Because that was no way to promote democracy.
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.
And now, Tim Robbins’ address to the National Association of Broadcasters:
Imagine a new broadcasting industry aesthetic, that respecting the better nature of the American people, produces shows that promote strength instead of fear. That does not divide, but inspires, that does not promote hate, but unity, that will not tear the weak down, but build up their strength. Imagine a world of broadcasting where the American people are encouraged to reject despair and distrust. And when they turn their TVs and radios off at night and go to sleep they possess strength, and unity and compassion for those they disagree with. That’s not out of the question. You can make that happen. It will be difficult, and will fly in the face of conventional wisdom, and standard operational procedures. But do we have any choice? The road we are on is leading us to a corruption of our former selves. We are better than that. You can help us reclaim our better nature, our perfect union. It isn’t necessarily a matter of country before profit, or of patriotism and truth before personal comfort. There could be money to be made in appealing to our better selves. Wouldn’t that be great?
And if there isn’t and we came out of it a little less rich but more unified and healthier as a nation wouldn’t that be something we could all be proud of?
Let’s make this very simple.
In the absence of any governmental regulations (like the Fairness Doctrine) forcing capitalist broadcasters to produce television in the public good, FORGET IT! They serve Wall Street, first, foremost and always.
And elections are just another product to package for the masses, who would be bored by substantive policy debates. They’re delivering an audience for people who are selling soap.
Besides, we all know what a farce these elections have become in this ‘democracy’ anyway.
Did you really expect the hosts, bought and paid for network corporate shills, to ask questions about peak oil, the collapsing economy, Bush’s admission he and his administration plotted the illegal torture of prisoners at Gitmo, the illegal and immoral war in Iraq and what to do about it, the millions across the US who face foreclosure and why nothing will be done to reform the system - the basic problems with our capitalist system, global climate change emergency measures, etc. etc. etc.
You gotta be kidding me!
Network television does the bidding of its corporate partners the same as the government. The American people are to be distracted with bread and circuses and treated to the election as a ‘horse race’ and have it packaged as some kind of Grand Struggle of Democracy played out betwixt numerous entreaties to buy useless junk.
Which is why I find it amusing that all these critics are shocked, shocked, at ABC’s superficial coverage and questions. You people know better. Perhaps you’re writing these thundering denunciations so that someday you can produce them to show your children that you really, really, DID try to do something about the state of American journalism before everything went to hell.
And as for Tim Robbins, perhaps he just likes to hear the sound of his own bloviating rhetoric. Of course, I agree with most of what he said. But his words will have absolutely no effect on their intended audience. If Robbins had delivered the harangue with the convention ringed by fellow travelers armed with submachine guns, well, perhaps THEN they would have taken his words seriously.
As it is, the NAB’s real reply to Robbins will be a simple sneer.
Hell, Stan Freberg tried 40 years ago to get the industry to self-examine with his brilliant parody Green Christmas. The industry responded by banning the song on several radio outlets and delivering a understated but deadly ultimatum to Freberg, who took the hint and never did anything like that again.
Only the hand of government, acting on behalf of the American people, can force these broadcasters to operate in the public interest. And as far as the implications for American politics, I seriously doubt whether either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama has the testicular fortitude to ram legislature through Congress to reform the American media. This system, despite their transparent protestations, serves them very well - protecting them from questions they cannot answer honestly.
Everything you see and hear on television has two main purposes: revenue generation and social cohesion. That is all you can expect under the current system and that is all you will get.
Unless people are willing to demand better or start burning down TV studios like they do in South America.
Fat chance that.
