I admit it: I’m a junkie. I still need my regular daily fix of politics, even though I’ve been retired for years now.
It all started with covering Burnaby City Council meetings for The Vancouver Sun … clearly a gateway event …that eventually led me to cover Vancouver City Hall, the GVRD, the Legislature in Victoria, Parliament in Ottawa (see the progression?) … and now lately, I’m even hooked on watching U.S. Presidential politics.
And trust me … stay away, unless you are prepared to be let down. U.S. Presidential Primary Debates may attract viewers looking for an ultimate high … but what you get is an initial rush, followed by a high or two as lines are delivered, but ultimately ending with a crash at the end of it all, leaving you empty, unfulfilled and exhausted … time after time.
Why?
Because the “reporters” asking the questions, probing the candidates have forgotten to be real journalists.
They all seem to be sticking to pre-scripted questions on pre-determined topics in pre-allocated segments ..all in an orchestrated, precisely timed order … which forces the whole debate into a pre-measured straight jacket formula that almost totally removes the essential questioning tool of cross-examination.
So we get assigned discussion segments on The Economy, Social Issues and Foreign Relations.
And admittedly, I do get my expected high from some of the questions and the responses from the candidates, or lack of responses, and parrying that follows between the aspiring Presidential candidates, and sometimes, the reporters on the panel.
But then comes the crash.
Why?
Because the journalists are so tied to their scripts, they don’t think about previous answers tossed out by the contenders as they totally contradict themsleves 20 minutes later in another segment.
For example, in Monday’s debate on Fox News the candidates, in the section on The Economy, were asked what level of personal income taxes they thought should be applied, even for the highest earners … and, of course, they responded calling for lower personal taxes …right down to zero in the case of Ron Paul. An easy lob to experienced journalists: what would lowering taxes on EVERYONE do to the US deficit, debt, economy???? And down to zero?? Where would Paul make up for the HUGE loss of revenues? Nothing. Nada. Rien.
And of course, they all called for lower corporate taxes as well. But even that didn’t lead to a single question about the impact this shallow rhetoric would have on the US government operations, its deficit and debt. The journalism was as shallow as the responses.
And it got even worse.
In a later segment on Foreign Affairs, all of the candidates, except Paul, called for a STRONG US defence policy and did quite a lot of saber-rattling in the direction of Iran. And even seemingly-isolationist Paul called for a strong US miliitary to DEFEND the country.
The OBVIOUS question ..how would they pay for all that …in light of their earlier pledge to lower or compeltely eliminate personal taxes, lowewr corproate taxes etc etc.?????
But apparently, when these illustrous journalists move on to a new segment …they MUST STICK to their pre-determined questions.
And they totally forget everything said by the candidates only minutes earlier … so there are no “wait a minute” moments, no questioning of how they intend to pay for a stronger military, a new war on Iran … while lowering taxes even more.
What would they cut … even eliminating two or three departments (likely impossible-to-keep rhetoric) and cutting foreign aid wouldn’t be enough to do all they kept promising to keep America “strong” without MAJOR service eliminations in huge already-committed social programs. Which would they cut or eliminate? And what would happen to those people who can’t find jobs and depend on those programs. Nothing. Nada Rien.
It’s actually quite a surprise to see such seasoned senior reporters failing to connect the dots between what a politician says now and what he said 20 minutes earlier. And it was not just done in the latest debate on Fox.
Quite shameful.
But now that you’re on to it, if you too are a political junky like me, I urge you NOT to watch for it next time. Take it from me: that will just make your crash when it’s over even worse. And vow never to do it again.
Until the next one.
Harv Oberfeld
18 responses so far ↓
1 13 // Jan 18, 2012 at 11:30 pm
You have to ask why. Why dont the reporters realize that a canidate is contradicting his/ her own policies?
Why do they not always stick to the party platform?
Reporters are to uninformed to know that a canidate has stumbled
Reporters realize that the public isnt as stupid and they figure we will connect the dots.
Reporters must never bite the hand that gives their employers air time.
Reporters realize that eonomics will dictate most policy and all the blather in the political world wont change anything.
Reporters realize that if they complicate an issue it might not make it past the editor that has to cram the debate into a news format that is based upon the formula that includes human interest. Who wore what. Who cheated on whom. Who did not wear underwear.
It all fits the pattern of dumbing down America. If the American public ever figured out how screwed they were due to government spending and waste and imigration disasters they would take up their arms and overthrow the government.
History repeats.
2 G.J.W. // Jan 19, 2012 at 12:20 am
It’s no different in Canada. Our media is muzzled and totally biased against the people. News is often a TV rerun, on the next days news. When they can report on only one side of the story, they run out of material. A lot of it isn’t even news, it’s just a filler.
Gone are the days, when family’s gathered around their radios, to get the war news, farming reports and news around the country and the world. There was good honest journalism in the newspapers. We really admired our war journalists, and all newspaper journalists in those days.
Now, I read the first two lines in a paragraph of the paper, and I can tell the rest of the story myself. All they do is spread the lies, our politicians want them to spread. No different than the news on TV.
I feel terrible, because I only have contempt left for the media. Journalists and reporters are in a position of trust, and they have deeply abused that trust.
3 DonGar // Jan 19, 2012 at 12:48 am
Today’s “News” is just more reality TV. No substance just filler. And journalism is dead in MSM replaced by talking heads. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46bBWBG9r2o
4 StandUpforBC // Jan 19, 2012 at 12:54 am
I listen to CBC a lot because the alternatives are worse, and they come with advertising. But I am increasingly fed up with CBC news (radio or TV, doesn’t matter). They shove US politics down our throats over and over again. I’m a political junkie too, but…
Does it not seem strange to other people in Canada that Canadian media spend far less time on the leadership election of the Canadian opposition party (the NDP) than they do on the leadership election of the US opposition party (the Republicans)?
Why do we have to be schooled in all the minute details of American opposition leader candidates and primary politics processes, when there is no such media schooling of the public about Canadian opposition leadership candidates or Canada’s political processes?
Yes, yes I know the US is powerful neighbour, but coverage far in excess of our own? Something’s amiss. I worry that we are paying for propaganda in the guise of “news”, with all the attention given to US politics rather than to that of our own country.
Here’s another example of why I am concerned about the CBC shoving US politics down our throats.
In 2003, the BC newsroom of CBC Radio was caught having manufactured a bogus news clip about a press conference that George W. Bush gave about the Iraq war. The CBC BC news staff substituted the actual response Bush gave to a reporter’s question with a line from the opening remarks that Bush had read. Simply lifted a clip and plunked it down in place of the response Bush actually gave the reporter, and then the CBC staff lied about the nature of Bush’s response in their lead-in to the newscast. Their actions were no “mistake”, that was a planned deception.
The incident was reported to the CRTC who subsequently found the CBC guilty of “an error” but there were no consequences for having duped the public. No announcement of this deception was ever made to the public, all was kept quiet. That’s how easily the media can, if it wishes, hoodwink the public.
5 Scotty on Denman // Jan 19, 2012 at 3:07 am
Senior reporters who neglect their job of inquiry have but one excuse for not asking Republican Primary candidates pertinent questions and not pointing out flagrant contradictions: if they dared do something like that, they’d lose their invitation to “cover” the debates. Besides, judging from the inconsistent, incongruent, incoherent inanities the candidates have displayed so far, any compelling queries might cow them into silence, and how entertaining would that be, just a bunch of white guys staring out the tube at us? The colgate smiles, the knitted brows….no thanks.
Saw Sarah Palin on CNN in the tire shop yesterday. Several times she was asked directly and plainly who of the Republican candidates she’d endorse and several times she dodged the question (with a nudge and a wink to Newt.) What’s a reporter to do? Still, Palin’s the high priestess of inanity and that’s pretty entertaining in itself.
So much of TV is made to vegetatively waste time and the GOP debates definitely qualify. There are short cuts, though, quick and easy, lets you get on with your day: if integrity and substance are what you’re looking for, you probably aren’t going to vote for any of these guys anyway, so you don’t have to watch for too long.
(Response: You can’t force a politican to answer…but sowing them squirming around is sometimes just as telling. i just wish the debate panelists would remember what the candidates say earlier in the debate, so that when they contradict themselves a half hour later, they can bring it up and expose it and demand an explanation …even if they don’t get it. the viewers will understand and appreciate what they see. h.o)
6 D. M. Johnston // Jan 19, 2012 at 2:09 pm
All I can say, watching the Republican primary, is how scary and ignorant they are. But what is even more scary, is that people will actually vote for these nutters.
As for reporters and reporter;s questions, it all depends what network they are on. All in all, the American political system is growing into a farce, just as what happened to Canada’s political system.
(Response: There’s another debate on tonight…on CNN. Will be interesting to see if their panel is better at listening and connecting the dots, or will just stick to their already-prepared questions. h.o)
7 Joe Stewart // Jan 19, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Harvey: Your first mistake was watching Fox News the propaganda arm of the Republican Party.There’s no way would they ever portray anyone of the candidates in a bad light.Their only mantra is beat Obama and they don’t care what happens to the citizens of the U.S.It’s government of the rich-by the rich and for the rich. No tough questions and no follow up.Kind of like our own Provincial MSM hacks,Palmer Baldry and Bill Good when they interview Christy Clark.Yadda Yadda Yadda.
(Response: Actually, I’ve noticed that with several of the debates on several newtowrks: panelists are so locked in to pre-written scripted questions I think a candidate could let slip that he had committed murder …and the response would be ..”We’ll be back with more questions after the break … as we move on to Foreign Policy issues.” h.o)
8 Keith // Jan 19, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Hi Harvey,
your response covers it in one sentence.
“panelists are so locked in to pre-written scripted questions I think a candidate could let slip that he had committed murder …and the response would be ..”We’ll be back with more questions after the break … as we move on to Foreign Policy issues.” h.o)
So far it’s been scripted theatre, the journos don’t want to ruffle too many feathers as they may be dealing with them in an official capacity, thw last thing they want to do is restrict their access to them at a later date. Plus it has been a rent – a – crowd on stage, and given the numbers of candidates, time constraints, topics to be covered we could be generous in giving the quetioner some leeway.
However now Rick Perry is out, Santorum won in Iowa it will be interesting to see how the format goes from here and if the questioner follows up on the inconsistencies.
(Response: Despite the journalistic flaws, I enjoy watching the candidates go after each other: the American selection process is almost blood sport. h.o)
9 Gini // Jan 20, 2012 at 7:06 am
I wonder how the media is going to handle the ex-Mrs. Gingrich’s little bombshell. Seems Newt hasn’t been exactly the poster boy for the Baptists, nor the RCs. If there’s one thing the religious right in America will not tolerate, it’s hanky-panky involving their presidential candidates.
This Republican leadership campaign is just starting to heat up. Let’s see how the journalists deal with Gingrich’s marital problems.
(Response: Well, if you saw the debate last night…you could see how it was handled….and, although I seldom agree with Gingrich, I did on this one: I thought it quite improper to have THAT … allegationas from a disgruntled ex, as the top question in a Presidential candidate debate. Certainly a valid issue to canvas about the quality of the man, but in an era of rising nuclear dangers, increasing attacks on medical coverages, exposure of the VERY low taxes paid by some billionaires like Romney etc ec..probably not the FIRST question on the agenda of a two-hour majot issues debate… unless CNN was looking for some sensationalism. h.o)
10 Doug // Jan 20, 2012 at 8:24 am
Just saw this clip from October’s Republican debates – http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fiU3maL6rzE – good to know their our bestous neighbours
11 mariner // Jan 20, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Gingrich’s ex wife comments were no more out of line than the comments and much stirring that went on when the Republicans went after Clinton.
Same – same and Gingrich doesn’t like it. Oh boy, methinks he has shown a very big weakness to the world – both his infidelity and his dislike of the media.
People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones – Gingrich has to learn the hard way I guess. He certainly isn’t too well schooled in real life – only in what he want’s to do and is acting like a spoiled child.
Thanks
12 Gini // Jan 20, 2012 at 10:00 pm
The Republican primaries have become nothing but a big mudslinging spectacle. Gingrich can sling mud with the best of them. His sanctimonious posturing is laughable.
If anyone thinks that any of these turkeys have the best interests of their constituents or country at heart, they are sadly mistaken. The bottom line is power and money, just as it always has been.
Obama may not be perfect, but I’d hate to see him lose to any of the opposition.
13 Gerry // Jan 21, 2012 at 12:52 am
Harvey, with all respect, you’re quite wrong when you say that Ron Paul has ever done any sabre rattling toward Iran. As a matter of fact, he has consistently said that any US/Israeli attack on Iran would be a HUGE mistake. He’s also called for the dismantling of America’s 800+ military bases overseas and to put a stop to its long-time meddling in other nations’ affairs. He’s the one candidate as well who’s ever bothered to put America’s foreign affairs in any kind of historical context such as mentioning the fact that Iran’s present resentment to America began back in 1953 when the CIA overthrew its government and installed the Shah as dictator (all over oil of course). This puts him completely at odds with every other Republican candidate as well as the entire US mainstream media. It also puts him completely to the “left” (whatever that means anymore) of Obama who now has the country involved in six wars and constantly asserts in his speeches that America has to be a dominant military power. Ron Paul’s a libertarian through and through so to him non-intervention is the most conservative policy of all.
Lots of info, videos on the internet on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4a__tcfFug
You’re absolutely correct on the media during those debates though!
(Response: Actually you’re quite correct. Paul has been totally against ANY military action on Iran or anywhere else for that matter. Bad wording on my part… will edit it to correct the messup. What I was referring to was that, even he, though called for a very strong military for DEFENSIVE purposes and yet, he doesn’t say how that will be funded under his zero personal income tax plan and lower corporate tax call. He should have been questionned on the contradiction. h.o)
14 Mo // Jan 21, 2012 at 6:00 pm
I never watched one bit of this so-called race. it would bore me to death. I get enough fro twitters feeds…
15 BG // Jan 21, 2012 at 8:10 pm
The debate was put on by FOX News and FOX News is owned by “News Corporation” which is owned mostly by Rupert Murdoch.
Rupert Murdoch wants lower corporate and personal taxes because he doesn’t yet have enough billions of dollars in his pocket. Undoubtedly he directly or indirectly influences the questions that the “journalists” ask.
Most of the private media companies are ultimately owned by some rich family who has some kind of political bias. Naturally that bias generally favours the lowering of taxes and the slashing of social programs. (The rich don’t like taxes and they don’t need social programs.)
Media companies don’t even make much money anymore, they’re simply used by the super rich as an avenue to influence and brainwash voters.
In Canada we have the CBC, which is not owned by some rich guy. But the head of the CBC is a political appointee, and the current head of the CBC was appointed by Stephen Harper. And of course Stephen Harper is “owned” by a bunch of corporations. Other democracies, like Britain for example with the BBC, have an independent head instead of an appointed one.
Virtually every journalist in this country is controlled by a multinational corporation or a super rich family, and they don’t seem to have the integrity to report the news honestly. If they did, they probably would have been fired by now.
16 Bob // Jan 22, 2012 at 1:43 pm
You’re right Harvey, but this is no different than the free ride that the press here have given the BC Liberals.
17 Judi Sommer // Feb 2, 2012 at 7:12 am
Hi Harvey,
Watching the GOP debates is a combination of horrified fascination of watching a slow-motion train wreck and eating junk food when a rush of carbs leads to a blood sugar crash. I am always fascinated by the historical divide of our two countries whose mother country should unite our sensibilities in so many ways but whose experiences in forging our politics by the American gun and libertarian dogmas have led to often huge cultural and political divides. Jack Layton would have been seen as a communist by the Tea Party as would have anyone with compassionate platforms!
As an aside to your blog, I am increasingly alarmed by Harper whose stealthy militaristic
rhetoric and symbolic acts are taking us closer to what is happening to our” cousins” to the South-but that’s another conversation.
Good to see you back, sir!
(Response: I love watching those debates. I don’t like any of them, BUT I’m also worried Obama does not have the backbone toi STOP Iran from getting nukes NO MATTER WHAT it takes. However I think the way things are now lining up …he may prove me wrong…BEFORE the election. As for Harper I warned on this blog what a majority government would bring with him. But if anything ,I’m surprised we haven’t seen more of the dictatorship type attitude and actions that come with a majority. h.oi.)
18 Judi Sommer // Feb 2, 2012 at 7:30 am
Hi Harvey,
A foot note to my last post. In the second Florida debate, at least Wolf Blitzer (aka “Blitz” in Cain-Speak-shudder) held Newt’s feet to the fire by challenging him on a series comments he had made on an earlier network show about Romney. Newt tried to dodge the issue by saying that that was another time and let’s move on.I’m no fan of Mr Blitzer who has become a charicature of a journalist who once had the respect of many of his peers. (and me, for what that’s worth) He has become a parody of himself. Thank God for Charlie Rose and his guests on PBS whoonce often appeared on CNN. It was a shock to see them after so many years as a kind of benchmark for how far the bar of journalistic excellence has fallen.
Leave a Comment
CAPTCHA Code is needed.