| There were no flashy videos, no comedy, and the moderator did not force herself into the fray. Democratic candidates stood face-to-face with the those who experienced crisis in their personal lives. Frequently, the prestigious politician, and the, all too often, invisible immigrant, poor person, child, and elderly citizen held hands. Tears flowed and sincerity followed.
The Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement debate was unlike what the general public often sees. The assembly was not aired on one of the mainstream media outlets. Only C-SPAN covered this campaign milestone. Perchance, that made the difference.
Today, Conglomerates, Candidates, and Correspondents kill campaigns. The public is helpless to change what occurs and has been for oh, so very long. Common folks flounder in a sea of information and believe they have the real scoop. However, deep inside the people know, they have little if any access to authentic information. Ordinary people cannot make their voice heard. In recent decades the media is the message. Political contenders control the communication, as do the companies that fund the discussions. The race to the Oval Office, or any political cubicle, is bought and paid for. The people purchase only the wares offered to them, and not much is made available.
A National Study of Confidence in Leadership, a Harvard University report reveals what most of us know, for we, the American people are the subject of this survey. More Than 60% of the American people Do Not Trust Campaign Coverage. I inquire, why should citizens have faith in the reports. Even the Presidential "Debates" are rigged in favor of a candidate or a corporation. Sponsors of such forums are the same companies that contribute to a particular Presidential hopeful.
Consider some of the conglomerates that characteristically subsidize the media programs. You may also wish to assess the assets that the candidates receive from these same sponsors, regardless of their political affiliation. Then contemplate the carefully choreographed debate question and answer format. Search for authenticity.
If you find it, please tell me where. Bill Moyers, of Public Broadcasting Services would also like to know if you discover a genuine give and take amongst the candidates. The founder of a nonpartisan organization Open Debates, and Author, George Farah might counter the notion that the debates are truly spontaneous or real. Yes, there was a time when Presidential hopefuls spoke at length, in depth and detail. They exchanged opinions, and carefully reflected on the issues aloud. However, that was eons ago.
When Carter squared off with Reagan, sixty percent of American TV households were watching. But over the past quarter century, there's been a big change. During Gore versus Bush four years ago, less than thirty percent of TV households tuned in . . .
Farah: The American people want to hear and see popular candidates discuss the important issues in an unscripted manner. That's what's at stake. Whether or not we're gonna have the right to witness an important conversation.
Moyers: And why aren't we getting that kind of discussion between the candidates now?
Farah: Because the Commission on Presidential Debates secretly submits to the Republican and the Democratic candidates and allows these candidates to sanitize the debate format, excludes popular voices, avoid discussing critical issues.
. . . The Commission on Presidential Debates, although it claims to be a nonpartisan organization, was created by the Republican and Democratic parties for the Republican and Democratic parties. By design, it was established to submit and conceal the wishes and demands of the Democratic/Republican nominees.
Moyers: The result, he says, is an event tightly controlled by the candidates, a glorified press conference with rules rigged to serve the candidates, not the public. . . .
. . . Do you think the people watching knew that the rules had been written by the two parties?
Farah: Oh, of course not. They had no idea. They thought the Commission on Presidential Debates, whose name sounds like a government commission, it sounds like a lovely agency that was commissioned or chartered by Congress. They thought this: organizations had decided that these rules best served the public interest. They had no idea that behind closed doors leading negotiators hand-picked by the candidates were determining that the candidates could not even ask themselves questions.
Moyers: The Commission is in fact a private corporation, founded by the then chairmen of the Republican and Democratic national parties. They're still running the show.
Farah: Every four years, the Commission on Presidential Debate publishes candidate selection criteria and proposes debate formats in order to comply with federal election law.
But questions concerning debate format and debate schedule are ultimately resolved behind closed doors between negotiators for the Republican and Democratic nominees.
Moyers: That wasn't the case in the beginning. The first televised presidential debates, between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960, were sponsored by the networks.
Now even the networks have questionable mores. News departments are more concerned with profits than information. Reporters do not investigate. There is no rhyme or reason for examination. You may recall, Broadcaster Sam Donaldson wrote of the change in his book, "Hold On Mister President." Under Ronald Reagan, all was staged. Journalists were kept safely at bay and the White House dictated the news of the day. Perhaps, the Reagan White House predicted what George H. W. Bush did not. Real people, reporters, rural, and urban dwellers might pose a question that belies the "illusion of truth."
Dear reader, you may recall in days of old, televised town hall meetings were broadcast nationally. During one of these assemblies the former President Bush was flustered when asked if he might relate to the plight of the average American citizen.
Audience Question: How has the national debt personally affected each of your lives? And if it hasn't, how can you honestly find a cure for the economic problems of the common people if you have no experience in what's ailing them?
Bush: I think the national debt affects everybody.
Audience Question: You personally.
Bush: Obviously it has a lot to do with interest rates.
Simpson: She's saying, "you personally."
Audience Question: You, on a personal basis, how has it affected you?
Simpson: Has it affected you personally?
Farah: The President was very flustered with the question. He didn't know how to handle it. What do you mean affect me?
Audience Question: What I'm saying is...
Bush: I'm not sure I get... Help me with the question and I'll try to answer it.
Farah: Well, this revealed much to the public that he had a very difficult time relating to everyday working people and how they are affected possibly by the budget deficit. And it's precisely because of that that the candidates decided afterwards for the next two election cycles and in this election cycle to manipulate and sanitize the town hall format.
Moyers: The candidates got their way.
Lehrer: The audience participants are bound by the following rule. They shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion. And the questioner's microphone will be turned off after he or she completes asking the question.
Moyers: What's more, town hall questions would have to be submitted in advance.
Farah: They had every member in the town hall audience write their questions on index cards and give them to Jim Lehrer.
He would point to the individual and have him ask the question. The consequence, of course, was no matter how good a person Jim Lehrer is, he's still asking all the questions.
The audience members are just there as props. He's still picking the ones to be asked. So it shows the sanitization of the town hall format, showed the evolution of how the candidates are increasingly controlling whatever they can control to avoid mistakes.
Controlling all aspects of the campaign is of utmost importance to the candidates. Long before a Presidential aspirant is the Party nominee, with the help of the media and powerful sponsors they ensure their win. This explains why money matters. Candidates are not electable if they propose policies that are doable and coveted. An effective campaign has the green necessary to sell the person that will profit those that already have economic power.
In 1996, members of the press remarked, political conventions were made for television theatrics. The drama was gone. Every aspect of the assembly was pre-planned and arranged with precision. Powerful Party players picked the delegates. For the candidates, the conference was a coronation. There was no real deliberation. Political conventions were just as the campaigns, calculated.
Weeks ago, we witnessed what was billed as a Democratic Debate. The forum in New Hampshire was one of many profitable programs that allow the public to hear the Presidential hopefuls speak. Scripted questions are presented and supposedly spontaneous responses are offered. However, in this recent debate, just as all that preceded it, there was no real discussion. Interaction was frowned upon and ended by a host almost as quickly as it started. Hype, hard sell, the handlers, and the handled filled the air with folly. Few of the Presidential aspirants were afforded an opportunity to speak. Nor do most seem to want to engage in meaningful discussion or debate.
Oh, the chosen ones, so anointed by the media, or the persuaded masses, were granted time. These front-runners often had more time to answer a question than the approved and allotted minutes the "rules" provided for a response. However, the little guy, the unelectable one, who articulates what the general public feels and experiences had only five minutes and thirty-seven seconds, in a two-hour broadcast to share his vision for America. Might we wonder why . . .
Americans give their lowest marks to leaders in the press. Americans are particularly dissatisfied with press coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign."
When asked if election coverage was politically biased, 40% believed it was too liberal; 21% too conservative; and 30% found it neutral. Nine percent of those responding were not sure.
Key among the findings:
- 64% of those polled do not trust press coverage of the presidential campaign.
- 88% believe that campaign coverage focuses on trivial issues.
- 84% believe that media coverage has too much influence on American voting choices.
- 92% say it is important that the news media provide information on candidates' specific policy plans, but 61% say the media does not provide enough coverage of policy plans.??
- 89% say it is important to hear about candidates' personal values and ethics, but 43% say there is not enough coverage of personal values and ethics.
Instead, those surveyed claimed they were getting "exactly the type of campaign coverage that they want the least," the report found. ??Seventy percent of those polled said coverage of negative ads was not important and 65% said the media provided too much coverage of them; 67% say that coverage of "gotcha" moments - candidates' embarrassing incidents and mistakes - was not important and 68% say there was too much coverage of those moments.
Even when the possible Presidential nominees are not engaged in trickery or deception, during election season the media is. On a Cable News Network program, titled Campaign Killers, host Campbell Brown, wife to former Advisor to the George W. Bush Presidential Envoy in Iraq, Dan Senor spoke of the insurgency. The reference did not address those we commonly think of as terrorists. The lovely Miss Brown purposely indicted MoveOn.org, a Progressive organization.
During the November 28 CNN special Campaign Killers: Why Do Negative Ads Work?, CNN anchor Campbell Brown said: "General David Petraeus made his reputation taking on insurgents in Iraq. But when he came to Capitol Hill in September, he was confronted by American insurgents, a liberal anti-war group called MoveOn.org."
Brown also asserted that a MoveOn.org advertisement headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" "became a huge news story because it questioned the loyalty of a wartime commander, implying he was a traitor." In asserting that the content of the advertisement generated news coverage, Brown did not point out the claim by many commentators that the ad "became a huge news story" because Republicans preferred to talk about it rather than Petraeus' testimony before Congress about the situation in Iraq.
In 2007, it is difficult to discern the media from the message. Lobbyists linger in the halls of every debate. Special interest groups and individuals with a well-known agenda marry those that report to the masses. No wonder the American people lack confidence in campaign coverage; accounts are obviously skewed.
As the broadcast of Campaign Killers continues, viewers realize Campbell Brown consistently makes mention of what she perceives as the wily practices of the 'money machine' MoveOn.org. Hence, we might acknowledge, perceptions of the infamous Liberal bias are not valid. This supposed slant is not evident in the press today. Nor has it been for quite some time. At least, we may note Miss Brown does not lean towards the Left.
The transcript of for this documentary might reveal Brown is not in favor of grassroots Progressive actions. We cannot know with certainty. One can only presume. However, if we note the number of times this Journalist links MoveOn.org to money, we can assume there is reason to postulate. Might Brown's personal perspective influence her reports.
It seems, in 2007 journalism is as the political process, a muddle. In the twentieth first century the old adage is truer than it was. "Politics makes for strange bedfellows." Correspondents sleep with those they report on and we, the people are without an objective blanket. Campaigns are but a high stakes rigged game. Once more, in 2008, the public will cast a ballot for the elite's handpicked electable winner, not for the one best able to address the issues, domestic and foreign.
In this election season, as candidates speak of change, we must accept there will be none. As long as we buy what the Conglomerates, Candidates, and Correspondents sell, only the face in the White House will differ. The status quo will live on in the Oval Office and the lives of the American people.
References, Resources, Campaigns, Contributors, and Correspondents . . .
Campaign for Community Values
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement.
Open Debates.
Hillary Clinton; Top Contributors. OpenSecrets.org
Barack Obama; Top Contributors. OpenSecrets.org
John Edwards; Top Contributors. OpenSecrets.org
Dennis Kucinich; Top Contributors. OpenSecrets.org
Cris Dodd; Top Contributors. OpenSecrets.org
Bill Richardson; Top Contributors. OpenSecrets.org
Banking On Becoming President. OpenSecrets.org.
Some media members hope for a new game at this year's conventions, By Ian Christopher McCaleb. Cable News Network.
Washington Talk: The Presidency; Shouting Questions At Reagan, By Steven V. Roberts. The New York Times. October 21, 1987
Study: More Than 60% Don't Trust Campaign Coverage Editor and Publisher. November 30, 2007
CPD: National Debate Sponsors.
Transcript. Rigging the Debates. NOW with Bill Moyers. Public Broadcasting Services.
Hold On Mr. President. By Sam Donaldson.
Ronald Reagan, TV Auteur, By Joe Hagan. The New York Observer. June 13, 2004
CNN's Brown called MoveOn.org "American insurgents". Media Matters.
Dan Senor, Former Advisor to the U.S. Presidential Envoy in Iraq. White House.
Campbell Brown
Campaign Killers: Why Do Negative Ads Work? Cable News Network.
"General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" MoveOn.org |
Subscribe to Site [RSS]
