Tuesday, July 1, 2008

The Point of Talking Vs. "Talking Points" at MSNBC

In a campaign year where we were promised that it would not be politics as usual and we would finally have a candidate that would put the politics of the past actually there, we now are quickly learning that very little has changed in Washington or within the campaigns of either Party.

We should not be surprised that the man at the top has very little control of his surrogates let alone his subordinates within the structure of the organization, but when one promises to deliver to America a "new" kind of candidate and a "new" kind of politics the expectation has thus far been greater than the delivery.

Barack Obama continues to make the proposal that he will "talk" to other nations, rogue or otherwise, in the world and yet continually fails to address the very "talking points" his surrogates are using to address concerns over his candidacy. Countless surrogates, including Wesley Clark, manage to undermine his very effort at an orchestrated "new" kind of campaign coupled with policies like withdrawing from a promise to use public funds and managing to dismiss John McCain's attempt at forming Lincoln-Douglas style debates to reach the American electorate. I wonder who would have been the Lincoln or the Douglas?I guess its easier to use Democratic surrogates on the so-called news programs to make enough points and real debates are rather mute.

These so-called "news" programs on the three networks have little do do with news these days. They are all merely op-ed versions of the print media that are formatted for televison. On MSNBC, Keith O. is about as good at dissimilating political data as he was sports at ESPN. After all his Countdown format is not much different than ESPN I guess in terms of reality...its about making it all entertaining afterall. One cannot get through one evening on MSNBC where they are not doing something that is either critical of the other networks or actually calling out competing broadcasters and pundits from either networks in a manner or attempt to embarass them in the form of politcial or media gotcha. My guess is Keith O learned this over at ESPN and has since mentored Abrams on the tact. I am quite sure though that this level of unethical in the broadcast sense but okay in the entertaining sense will have former media stalwarts of yesteryear ashamed at what their profession has become in the modern day.

Now I am not simply picking on MSNBC. Fox and CNN have their share of issues and pundits that attempt to cloak thier true intentions within so-called objectivity but I find MSNBC to be rather the most offensive in the area of propogating "talking points" as somehow relevent news. To be fair, they over at NBC have the high hill to climb in terms of ratings I guess so that may be why it is they want to provide people with platforms as a means of "expert"portrayal of relevent issues.

I love how political stratagists/campaigners and surrogates are somehow now the experts on the oil crisis or the mortgage crisis. I love how these people one day are experts on the underpining of Washington and then the next day know what the heartland is all about and is concerned about. If that were true I wonder why it is they fail to actually report the heroic actions of citizens battling the recent floods and instead opt to re-ignite the levies of New Orleans criticisms. I wonder why it is the fail to report on a Medal of Honor winner who saved Americans lives by sacrificing his own, but instead determine to report rising escalation in Afghanistan everytime something about Iraq come up.

I wonder. Will Obama visit Iraq or Afghanistan next month? I mean come on Barack, pick the safer destination by all means.

You see, "talking points" now are because we opted to undertake the surge in Iraq and actually make progress, we sacrificed Afghanistan. Not a single dialogue the past three days about Iraq has been about Iraq. They dismiss the progress on the ground in Iraq and the same folks that said the surge would not work instead are not admitting they were wrong but are now using Afghanistan as the new "talking point".

Smoke and Mirrors friends.

Mind you these are the same pundits who are experts on gun control, oil speculation, mortgage sub-prime and oh yeah military deployments and counter-terrorism. Exactly how does one become an expert in all those fields? Simple. Work for MSNBC. I wonder when the actual day will come when MSNBC places real people of industry on their programs. People who actually employ Americans or run refineries or drill for oil in the Gulf or who research where oil potentially sits. Instead when MSNBC talks about oil, it does so soley in the context of politically motivated means by pacing blame on the current adminstration and continuing the propaganda that rely more on the Middle East than anywhere else for oil.

Newsflash. Canada and Mexico over the course of the last ten years have supplied us with more oil. Why is it they never seem to show a picture of a Canadian rig or a Mexican rig or even a Chinese rig right in the midst of our waters edge? Its always a Saudi or Iraqi oil field.

But the oil crisis is speculators? And according to the rhetoric those specualtors are all Republicans who support unregulated markets I guess. Funny but there most be alot of those in Obama's backyard in Chicago or Clinton's NYC at the commodity exchanges I guess. Certainly none of these awful people are Democrats? All those Democrats on Wall Street are all Robin Hood types I guess.

And now we get this large dose of Wesley Clark. Of course we are supposed to believe he is not acting in any capacity for any campaign and yet the only disclaimer we are provided with is "Obama supporter". This person of course was praised on MSNBC for aligning with Obama after Clinton's defeat in the Primary. Had he actually come out with positive things to say about John McCain's military service or record are we to believe MSNBC would have carried it as news at all? Doubtful.

You see, the media has been appealing to everything that is bad in our nation lately and devoted much of the coverage to the negative. It fuels the divisions amongst us by focusing on the divisive nature of politics and sets different groups off against each other for the sole purpose of capturing political points. The treatment of Hillary Clinton was anything but ethical in my book regardless of whether you support her or not. It was almost as if she got 527'd by the very media that once had embraced her husband. Yeah, she got "swiftboated" for sure in the Primary.

Only at these media networks can a person like Bill Clinton be able to one month be portrayed as sparking racial divides and now by talking with Obama all is forgotten under the guise of "unity". I guess you have to have really short memories, or maybe just have alternative "talking points" pre-formatted for new conditions. I guess its okay now that those so-called "whites" supporting Hillary in PA, OH, KY, WV that were portrayed as uneducated with racial tension months ago are now home in the Obama camp that all is forgiven. No. How about an apology for the manner in which they were treated in the media.

If the Clintons had the "race card" played upon them by their oppossition than its not a big leap to feel certain news networks acted as the surrogate of such propositions. And exactly who is it exactly who has benefited from such behavior?

I wonder just what our nation will be like and these networks will do if they are delivered what appears to be their certain collective will and Obama wins in November. Will they actually have to retreat to covering real news again or will they simply be the political "defense" departments for an Obama presidency.

What will Keith O do with himself in 2009 if he does not have a President to humiliate himself upon. No worries, I am sure the love fest will continue well into the next decade should Obama defeat John McCain.

Can you imagine what the nation will get on these networks when there is a Democrat in the White HOuse and complete Democrat controlled Congress in Washington. News. What news. Free speech? Oh, sorry...its called Fairness Speech now and will we have any models to look at in terms of how these organization will cover Washington?

Sure we do. Look at any other Socialist state news run organization for guidance.


Anonymous said...

With the passing of Tim Russert, NBC news onthe whole I think is in trouble. You cannot build a franchise around Obermann and some of the others there now at MSNBC. While Tom Brokov will be taking over on Meet the Press he most likely will not be on air by the time the next Presidential campaign begins next cycle.
They have not displayed a level of objectivity in quite some time and the support of Barack Obama by MSNBC is something that hass grossly be under covered.
MSNBC has become a network where the wear their disdain for anything Republican and George Bush in particular on their sleeve at the same time running to the defense of Congress everytime by saying its the filibuster that has prevented action.

Well, you cannot vote on measures that Democrats keep from coming to the floor.

I hope that John McCain goes with Romney and expect MSNBC to cover Mitt the same way they did in the Primary by telling us "he is a Mormon" every time his name is mentioned. It is amazing how they have constructed it as blasfimy to question anyhting about Obama's faith or his record and yet the love to pile on the Mormon rhetoric against Romney every chance they got.

Gee, I wonder what we as a nation are more afraid of; having a Mormon be one step away from the Presidency or having an African-American in the White House? Alter is right here, MSNBC and others are playing to not what is great about Americans but what is bad about a minority of Americans.

They never seem to elevate the debate, but always manage to tell us exactly whose to blame for it.

Zero solutions coming on MSNBC for oil dependence. I wonder if thats because they only seem willing to focus on the environmentalist ideology of the left wing of the Democratic Party which is not willing to compromise on any issue related to oil.

Jules said...

Does anyone think that all these so-called polls being conducted by these networks are simply down right ridiculous.

Who would you prefer to BBQ cook out with on the 4th?

Who would you rather play golf with?

Which wife would you prefer as First Lady?

Anyhting and everything to keep from having to talk about issues. Something I imagine they learned in the Primary because Obama and Clinton are about as close as it comes on the issues so there was no story there so the media looked for other stories to create.

Look I am all for change and I got caught up in it on Super Tuesday and voted Democrat. I have since had a few months to really consider issues and I just have not been as impressed with Obama as I once was. I am looking at things from a policy perspective domestically and I just do not see how all the spending proposed now to win the liberal vote will do anyhting to help use reduce spending.

I like many fear that there will not be a reduction in spending but merely a shift away from defense and security and into other areas. Obama seems less concerned today as he was last year over social security and other entitlement programs and seem to be making a press for the center.

I would guess that if people knew he was planning to make a dash for the center, maybe they simply would have stuck with Clinton in the first place.

I am tired already of this campaign against Bush as if he was running for re-election. It signals that maybe even the insiders are worried that they cannot tackle Mccain one on one and have to use Bush as a wedge to change the storyline. That concerns me.

I know McCain offered up 10 town hall debates and for Obama to only agree to a proposed three saddens me. It reinforces the idea that the media is orchestrating the campaign in that they are the ones who lose out if they are unable to control these town hall meetings.

It is looking less and less like the change we first were encouraged by.

I cast a ballot for Hillary, but I just am not sure that this course is sincere by any means by Obama. I have issues with some of McCain's platform but I am become convinced each week that his is more consistant than Obama's.

We have managed to confuse holding office with leadership and they are not always one in the same. The internet has provided a means to fully research just how dormant Obama has been on issues in Congress and that is really going unchallenged in large part because when Hillary did so she got burned for it by the media.

McCain has a bi-partisan record that cannot be disputed and his people need to focus on that if they seek to earn those of us who voted on Super Tuesday as a rejection of current status quo.

Stan said...

While I understand the point, I do not think things will get extreme with regard to the overall coverage.

I do think however, that the days of talk radio as we have known them will be over. I imagine thats the whole point behind "Fairness Doctrine" and I think there ahs been pressure by the mainstream media on Washington to get this done. I think they have seen the counts continue to rise and if Obama was to win in November, talk radio or at least conservative talk radio would once again explode with listeners bases across the country just like they did during the Clinton era.
I think that the doctrine is an attempt to prevent this and I do think it is a consorted plan on behalf of the DNC to get it done.

James said...

MSNBC stikes again with Maddow stating that Obama new position on Iraq and now is backing away from withdrawl within 16 months as he has been pledging since January and now has taken the Clinton nuance as his latest flips. Of course Obama's folks beat up on Clinton during the Primary regarding the very position he now is taking.

In fact it is really not all that different from McCain. Does this mean that this is a silent admission that the surge has been working...something Obama has never admitted or addressed..or is it simply to blur the center once again like his move right to the center on FISA.

How can the left see this guy as the savior for them. Unless of course they feel once elected he will flip back to their agenda once in the White House. That is untirely possible so do not be to convinced these new postions are the real ones.

Maddow, any excuse to prevent the dialogue from addressing what people say in context, instead she defines things as she feels in the intent was but what was not spoken by the candidate, unless of course its a Republican.

Anonymous said...

Sorry I missed this post.

This evening MSNBC comes to the defense of Obama "refining his position".

Had it been McCain who said the same thing you think they would be so light-handed. They like to always paint a great and rosy picture of Obama no matter the circumstances.

I bet when Obama returns from Iraq and stays the course on his policy in the face of a growingly successful surge result they will praise him for remaining true to his promises.

Whats a promise worth? How about $200 a barrel in gas. If we pull out within 12 to 16 months of an Obama victory, the price of gas will rise even more.

But no worries, come the close of 2009 MSNBC and the Democrats will still blame George Bush. Just watch. My guess is if Obama wins in November gas will most likely be hoovering around 130 a barrel and by the end of 2009 with the increasing demand constraints by the Chinese (the new American economy) a barrel will be topping $200. Thats a $70 increase.
I wonder then will they admit it has nothing to do with Iraq but it truly is supply and demand. Oh I forgot I am dreaming.

Those of you out there who are still dreaming had better wake up to the true reality that energy will not be getting much cheaper for awhile and could get much higher if Obama pulls out of the ME.