Again, I don't understand why anyone would pick candidates based on debates. The only way to learn about candidates' substance (incumbents, anyway) is to dig up voting records, campaign-finance reports, and old news articles.
Media coverage makes it even harder for time-pressed voters to make informed choices. Why, for example, are post-debate commentaries peppered with words like "commanding" and "presidential"?
Martin Sheen pulled of "commanding" and "presidential" on West Wing for seven years. Of course the articulate, seasoned politicians on stage last night pulled it off for two hours. What does that signify?
Another issue is where media focus the spotlights. About last night's debate and today's Washington Post article, Damozel said:
"The media have decided for the rest of us which candidates' opinions we need to consider. Hillary Hillary Hillary Edwards Hillary Obama Obama Obama Obama Edwards Edwards Edwards Richardson Gravel Other-People-They-Don't-Think-We-Care-To-Hear-From Hillary Hillary Hillary Obama Obama Obama Edwards Edwards HILLARY. Is it January already?..."
It is early to write-off any candidate--and a disservice to voters. If the Bush Administration has taught us anything, it's that we should demand more substance from the media.
Comments