Politically Speaking...: November 2007

NBC News sunk to a new low at the Democratic presidential debate last week. We've all grown accustomed to Fox News' normal propaganda, but to see NBC resort to that sort of yellow-journalism was very upsetting. Where are the American people going to turn for news when all the national news outlets are pushing an agenda instead of delivering objective news?

Case 1: Fox News hosted a GOP Debate on September 5, 2007. At the conclusion of the debate, Fox News polled viewers to see who they thought won the debate. Surprisingly, Ron Paul ended up polling 34% leading the other GOP candidates by more then 15%. In an attempt to downplay the poll, not only did Fox News stop showing the results on the screen once they noticed Paul wasn't budging, they also begin airing anti-Paul rhetoric. This took place on Hannity and Colmes, the show that ran post-debate coverage. Once they pulled the statistics supporting Paul off screen, they began showing clips of an argument on the Iraq War between Paul and Mike Huckabee in which they asked viewers if they approved or disapproved with Paul. In this individual case, all of the views disapproved of Paul and approved of Huckabee. They then cut to a different clip from the debate between Paul and Giuliani and did the same exact thing. Fox News did this because they do not want Ron Paul elected as the GOP candidate. By selecting to show only clips where viewers disapproved of Paul, Hannity and Colmes were able to make it seem like he was the least favorable candidate when, in actuality, he won the post-debate poll.

Case 2: At the end of the October 31, 2007 Democratic debate, Tim Russert asked this question to Dennis Kucinich: "Congressman Kucinich, I want to move to a different area, because this is a serious question. The godmother of your daughter, Shirley MacLaine, writes in her new book that you sighted a UFO over her home in Washington state, that you found the encounter extremely moving, that it was a "triangular craft, silent and hovering," that you "felt a connection to your heart and heard directions in your mind." Now, did you see a UFO?" Here is the next question Russert asked to a "respectable" candidate..."I'm going to ask Senator Obama a question, in the same line. The three astronauts of Apollo 11 who went to the moon back in 1969, all said that they believe there is life beyond Earth. Do you agree?" Is it just me or does it seem like Obama got a much more intelligent, serious version of the question? Russert essentially asked both candidates the same exact question: do you believe in extraterrestrial life? Look at how drastically different Russert worded a question to a so-called "viable" candidate as opposed to a so-called "joke" candidate. The most astounding thing is that the reason Kucinich is considered to be a "joke" candidate in the first place is because the news media does not take his candidacy seriously! The question Tim Russert asked Kucinich (in the way he asked it) served only one purpose - to illegitimize Kucinich's campaign and make him look like a Looney Toon so that no one takes him seriously. Just read the question yourself and justify why Russert would ask a question this way. Has Obama never said anything outlandish? Has Clinton never said anything silly in her life? Has Edwards never told his kids that he believes in angels? What Kucinich said about his UFO experience has been echoed by Democratic and Republican candidates alike when they are asked about their close religious connection with God. Why is Kucinich labeled a nutcase for talking about UFO's while other candidates talk about even wackier "mystical experiences" regarding their spiritual beliefs? And why do the media choose to ask questions for the sole purpose of discrediting candidates they don't want to see elected? Shouldn’t that be a question left up to the citizens of the country, not the media?

What Fox News and NBC did is comparable to a scientist who only uses data from experiments that fit her hypothesis. Just like the scientist, news anchors talk about specific things that fit with their agenda. This would not fly in the scientific arena and it should not fly in the political arena either. The media has a lot of power in the United States, more so then in other countries such as England. The American people need to trust the news media to help them make informed decisions. The people should have the opportunity to make their own decisions based on the real news, not the news that the networks want people to hear. Unfortunately, most American citizens are sheep to the system. They don't even realize how much the media manipulates and brainwashes them. In the events leading up to the Iraq War, the media, instead of reporting the actual facts, all decided to support the war effort – lone behold the American public (because they weren’t given the real facts) all supported the invasion based on what the news networks reported. Look what happened as a result. It was all propaganda; fed to the American populace by television, radio, internet, and print media - and people believed it. It all starts with the networks though. If they news networks present genuine news with as little slant as possible, then the American people will be forced into making there own assessments and think for themselves. There is great responsibility given to the press in this country. Once the media and press are disingenuous with the American people, the people have no where to go for information.

As we've seen in the case of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, the news networks have an agendas they are trying to push. It is a threat to both fairness and democracy if the news is allowed to continue to operate like a Michael Moore film. We are in desperate need of some sort of "fairness doctrine" to try and set things straight. If we continue down this path America could become nothing more then a bunch of mindless drones dictated to by the powers that be at NBC and Fox. Overall the whole system is broken. There is so much big money in advertising that news organizations can't seem to say no to corporate lobbyists. That’s another topic for a different time though. Either way, something needs to change and fast.

Its time for the American people to wake up and realize how much control the media has over their decisions and its time for the news media to stop undermining our democracy.

-tg

Had two big exams towards the end of the week so I was unable to write about my experience at Tuesday’s Democratic Presidential debate in Philadelphia until today.

This was my first time in a Spin Room after a debate and it was as just as chaotic as I imagined. As the spinners walked into the lobby they were all immediately bombarded with reporters. It was nearly impossible to get to Clinton's or Obama's campaign in the beginning so I went to talk to Kucinich's campaign where I discussed the World Trade Organization with Dennis' wife, Elizabeth. As the night continued it became easier to talk with representatives of Clinton, one of which was Gen. Wesley Clark. I was also able to get a few comments from Democratic Chairman Howard Dean but there was really nothing of substance I could use in a news segment. After about a half-hour a few candidates begin filing in. First was Dennis Kucinich (ironically he would be the last one to leave the room at around 1 AM). Chris Dodd also stopped by to make a few comments as well as Joe Biden. I had the pleasure of seeing Biden backstage at Mendell Theater later that night - he was surprisingly more personable then I would have thought. Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson did not make any appearances in the Spin Room.

I know this may seemed biased but I’m attempting to remain as objective as possible when I say Dennis Kucinich seemed the most down to Earth personable candidate after the debate. Not only did he spend the most time out of any other candidate talking to reporters himself, as opposed to sending representatives, he was also the last candidate to leave the room. I overheard one Drexel student outside the lobby as I was leaving say, "I tried to get to Obama to shake his hand but he left too quickly." Kucinich on the other hand, waited until all the media left the Spin Room and then invited any student who wanted to have a picture with him into the room. As I left the debate he was still posing for pictures. Whether you agree or disagree with his policies he is willing to actually sacrifice his own personal time to listen to what citizens tell him. I'm not saying that the other candidates don't care about the people, but I was shocked to see how important it was for Kucinich to hear what every person in the room had to say – regardless of age. Just some first hand experience to think about come Primary time.

Now onto the debate itself. Obama looked like he got a lot better as the debate went on. It seemed like he started out a little tentative but got comfortable as things unfolded. Edwards came out as combative as usual which was not a surprise. For Obama to catch Clinton in the polls he is going to have to engage her in a debate directly the way that Edwards has been doing. Instead of saying "there is someone on this stage who voted a certain way and I tend to disagree" he should just say "Clinton voted this way and it was wrong." Obama just dose not seem to have that combative edge he needs to take on someone as feisty as Clinton. The sad part about it is Obama's doing the right thing. By highlighting his positives rather then attacking the other candidate’s negatives he is taking a sort of "political high road" over mudslinging. It really is disappointing that Obama's "be the bigger man" approach isn't working, because in my opinion it is exactly what this country needs in politics. Obama has promised he is not going to play "politics as usual" and he has valiantly kept that promise. Its ashame people aren't catching on, and its even more ashame that Obama has to chose between being the respectable politician he is and wants to be and being the muckraking politician he needs to be to beat Clinton.

Even if most of the debate remained cordial, it did get a little testy towards the end. Edward's and Obama's eyes both immediately lit up when Clinton gaffed the Eliot Spitzer illegal immigration question. They both saw this as the opportunity they were looking for and when politicians smell blood, they go in for the kill. Her inability to answer the question honestly really hit her hard. This is not going to do much in the polls, but her gaffe did something much more telling. If the final 20 minutes of the debate showed nothing else - it showed that a Clinton nominee is not inevitable. Before the debate she had pretty much ran a textbook campaign with no real slips. Even though her mishap during the debate will not do too much for her support in the polls it showed everyone watching that she is not immune to faulting. This is a sign that should invigorate the other candidates.

Taking the whole debate into account I think if I had to choose a winner it would be Joe Biden. Not only did he have the humorous one liner of the night with "The only things out of Rudy's mouth are noun, verb, 9/11," he also looked the most polished and presidential. He had a great command of the stage, looked very comfortable answering questions, articulated his policies well, and was able to avoid bluntly dodging questions. He didn't get to speak as much as Hillary and Barack but given the time he portrayed himself as an extremely strong and competent leader. It seems like he is gaining more and more support as Richardson is dropping in the polls. Should not be long before Biden moves into the number four spot if he continues to run a strong campaign and Richardson makes no adjustments.

On a final note, Tim Russert's question to Kucinich about a UFO sighting was unconscionable. I'll explain why next post.

Me and Charlie (Turkish Daily News Reporter)