Greetings Fellow Comstoks! (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} fengi) wrote,@ 2008-04-17 12:05:00 |
|
Not only is there gambling, but it's rigged!
It seems last night's debate may have been a turning point, and my wish for an outcry holding media workers responsible for improving their own action might come true.
Though not if it only centers on yesterday. It's easy for reporters to play Captain Renault over ABC's behavior. Umbrage at Charlie and George means nothing as long as the donut and bar-b-q crowd is allowed to continue conflicting interests without being named or questioned.
The Nation's John Nichols has a great headline to his opinion piece: Democrats Debate Republican Talking Points.
Alas, his main criticism is how the candidates played along with every loaded question, while the people who asked those questions are a secondary concern: "...the Democratic contenders sounded as if they were reading outtakes from a particularly lame Bill O'Reilly program. To be fair, this was not entirely the fault of the candidates. The line of questioning from ABC "News" personalities...And the questions from viewers appeared to have been selected with the purpose of raising doubts about whether these people may be spending just a little too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh." That seems fair: because ABC controlled the cameras, picked the questions and determined the tone, the candidates are only almost entirely at fault for the end result.
Meanwhie, in my ideal world George Stephanopoulos would lose his job over asking questions dictated by Fox News host Sean Hannity during one of the palsy walsy circle jerks that is the talking head scene.
It seems last night's debate may have been a turning point, and my wish for an outcry holding media workers responsible for improving their own action might come true.
Though not if it only centers on yesterday. It's easy for reporters to play Captain Renault over ABC's behavior. Umbrage at Charlie and George means nothing as long as the donut and bar-b-q crowd is allowed to continue conflicting interests without being named or questioned.
The Nation's John Nichols has a great headline to his opinion piece: Democrats Debate Republican Talking Points.
Alas, his main criticism is how the candidates played along with every loaded question, while the people who asked those questions are a secondary concern: "...the Democratic contenders sounded as if they were reading outtakes from a particularly lame Bill O'Reilly program. To be fair, this was not entirely the fault of the candidates. The line of questioning from ABC "News" personalities...And the questions from viewers appeared to have been selected with the purpose of raising doubts about whether these people may be spending just a little too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh." That seems fair: because ABC controlled the cameras, picked the questions and determined the tone, the candidates are only almost entirely at fault for the end result.
Meanwhie, in my ideal world George Stephanopoulos would lose his job over asking questions dictated by Fox News host Sean Hannity during one of the palsy walsy circle jerks that is the talking head scene.
Hannity asked George what kinds of questions they'll be asking at the debate tomorrow and they discussed a few things. When Hannity asked about the first question below about Ayers and whether George had plans to ask such a question, George replied, "Well, I'm taking notes now Sean." It did actually sound like he was pausing to take notes. And Hannity continued to feed him more:Before the debated ABC contacted UIC for a photo of Ayers, but I'm sure this was for the best possible intentions.
1) Ask Obama about his relationship with Ayers and WeatherUnderground and Axelrod's comments, "They're friendly"
2) Ask Obama why he attended the Million Man March
