It seems to me like the McCain/Palin team have taken hypocrisy beyond the level of dirty politics into the realm of pathology. There are so many instances, I don't know where to start. The Straight Talk Express doesn't talk to anyone, and bans reporters(Maureen Dowd) from McCain's jet. Palin is asked a question at a town hall meeting by a citizen and McCain dismisses the stupidity of her answer by blaming the press for playing 'Got ya'. AND ACTUALLY, isn't that the role of the press? To play 'Got ya'? To catch, in this case, would-be presidents and VPs when they lie or speak in a manner that reveals their ignorance?
We're told Palin is a strong woman candidate, but she has to be shielded from the press and voters. Anyone who points out lies and inconsistencies in her record is accused of being sexist - yet her opposition to equal pay isn't anti-woman? Palin mouths the word 'transparency' but no one who works for her is allowed to answer a subpoena or talk about the Troopergate scandal. The only 'investigation' she'll participate in is one that is conducted in complete secrecy. Transparency doesn't extend to her tax returns - which she still has not released. She fights politics as usual, but has indulged, from the beginning of her career, in accepting all kinds of gifts in return for her support on issues involving laws and financing(http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/540128.html)
Or what about her college transcripts. She's prepared to be President, but we can't know what, if anything, she studied at such august institutions as North Idaho College - a community college with no apparent qualifications needed for admission, or Matanuska-Susitna College - a really small school that also seems to accept anyone who can breathe. Wouldn't it help us make informed decisions if we knew about the rigor of her intellectual training. Or how about McCain's medical report. He's running for President, yet we can't see how severe his cancer is, how long it is estimated by doctors that he has to live. Transparency?
The most recent example of hypocrisy - the Democrats who voted for the bailout bill are responsible for its failure to pass, not the Republicans who voted against it. McCain takes a partisan swipe at Obama on the failure of the bailout to pass - it's Obama's fault because he behaved like a true stateman, working behind the scenes, not posturing in public - and immediately after this swipe McCain goes on to say, This is not the time for partisan politics. McCain finds it essential to airdrop in to DC last week, after spending $5800 on make-up so he'll look good in his interview with Katie Couric, , but doesn't know if he'll make the vote this week. He's an outsider, but an insider who can pull his party together. He's for the common man but he owns 13 cars and 8 - 13 houses. He's a 'populist' who favors tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. She is a devoted mother who after her water breaks gives a speech, flies on 3 jets, and takes 12 hours to find a hospital - a great example of a pro-lifer putting her unborn child at risk. She welcomes and accepts her daughter's pregnancy, but threw her out of the house when she first found out.
I think this pattern of behavior is so ingrained, there's no way either of them can change. Can you imagine how this would play out if they were elected?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
"threw her out of the house when she first found out"
I hadn't heard this. Wow, if that's substantiated, it should be more widely known.
Here's my fantasy for their latest stunt. When asked on FoxNews this morning whether he might suspend his campaign again to go back to help get a bailout bill passed, he said he would do whatever it takes, and that if it takes that he will suspend it again.
Congress comes back into session on Thursday; the VP debate is Thursday night. Look for an announcement Wednesday night that they're suspending the campaign and the debate will have to be postponed -- and they will try to arrange another time, difficult as that may be do accomplish.
Richard,
No, it's not the function of the media to play "Gotcha." It's the function of the media to probe and report fairly and objectively. That you think gotcha is good suggests that you have bought into the model of tabloid journalism.
Having said that, I don't think Katie Couric participated in gotcha journalism. It seemed to me that she asked reasonable questions that anyone with a VEEP-level of sophistication should have been able to handle. Palin showed a parochial view of the world that I find entirely inappropriate for the position she is seeking.
I understand your point about her education, despite your smear of community colleges. They were and are the only alternative for those who are going through school on their own dime.
Set,
Perhaps in trying to be provocative, my comments came across in a way they weren't intended. In no way did I mean to 'smear' community colleges - I have done a ton of work with literacy students in shelters, prisons, and community colleges. NC has a great community college system. I have worked in them, from teaching writing to ESL, and trained instructors in effective ways to teach from a participatory, learner-centered philosophy.
But my larger point related to transparency. Because there is no standard for enrollment, there is no immediate basis for assuming someone who attends a community college has undergone a course of study that has helped them develop the intellectual rigor required to be president. That's why it's important to see Palin's transcripts. To see what she did study, and how she did at it. Last election, we were privy to information about how Kerry and Bush performed at Yale. If Palin wants us to believe she's ready to be president, she needs to prove that by showing some basic educational achievement, esp. in light of the lack of knowledge she has displayed in her interviews.
I would disagree with you about the 'Got ya' function of the press, too, although that might be a matter of our having different understandings of what the term means. To me, an investigative article is the most basic form of 'Got ya' journalism.
When I was in Pittsburgh, I wrote an expose on the Juvenile Court system. I went inside under cover. my piece could be construed as 'Got ya' journalism, because I fully intended to show the system was horrific, something everyone in the system knew, but were too polite to discuss publicly.
It was a heartbreaking story about a 5-year-old sexually abused girl who was returned to the custody of her father. The story delved into the systemic flaws which led to this outcome; the failure of judges, advocates, court-appointed psychologists, the social service system, and the county, which funded the Juvenile Court system.
I captured a county Commissioner admitting that he believed more money should be spent on golf courses for the wealthy, than on the Juvenile Court building(which was filthy, lacked basic sanitary facilities, had no changing rooms, and crammed everyone together, abuser and abused, in one open waiting room) because, as the Commissioner said, the golf courses bring in money.
When the story broke that Commissioner was irate. He both denied his comment and accused me of 'Got ya' journalism, although he didn't use that precise term.
I think it's legitimate to let people hang themselves with their own words, as Couric did. I think it's legitimate to pose questions designed to discover what someone does, or doesn't know or believe. It is the journalist's role to get the story.
The upshot in Pittsburgh was that the citizens pulled together and collected $50,000 towards building a new, safer Juvenile Court building, the County came up with increased funding, and those who worked in the system, at least for awhile, conducted their business in a way that was more sensitive to the needs of the victims.
It could, indeed, be the way I define gotcha journalism. You may have intended to expose the workings of the juvenile justice system, but did you ask questions is such a way that no reasonable person could answer them without sounding like they were unreasonable? Did you edit your story so that the audience saw a distorted view of the situation?
My experience with gotcha journalism was watching a boss being interviewed on a very complex, hot button, topic, then reading the news article that completely distorted what he said. He was quoted correctly, but incompletely so it seemed he meant things that he did not say. I witnessed the interview and read the story and was floored at the difference.
As I said, I don't think CBS did anything of the sort. Couric asked the questions and I have no reason to believe that they reported anything but the answers Palin gave.
No, I edited my story to show the truth of the situation. I wasn't forthcoming with the County Commissioner. I told him I was looking into how decisions are made on budget priorities. Which was true, but I didn't tell him the entire context of my investigation.
I think of 'Gotcha' or 'Got ya' journalism as rooted in 60s activist journalism.
I think there are a number of different types of journalism. Distorted, opinion-based journalism happens when someone has a point to make and they distort the facts, or make them up to fit their preconceived biases. Christopher Hitchens, a writer I enjoyed reading, often did this in the Nation, a magazine I generally like. McCain's pronouncements increasingly fall into this category.
Then there's sensationalism, which is what's practiced by publications like the National Enquirer. Often their facts are accurate, but they focus on the most lurid aspects of a story. They were accurate about OJ - well ahead of the mainstream media. They were accurate about Johon Edwards. They're probably accurate about Palin. John Edwards denied he was having an affair and dismissed the allegations by essentially calling the writers for the NE trshy liars. They took photos, talked to sources(paid sources) that proved Edwards was, in fact, the liar. Which Edwards ultimately admitted. That's sensational, but it's not untrue.
And there is activist journalism. I think of an activist journalist as someone who believes the truth in a story has not been told - based on prior research and observation. So she/he goes out and asks questions, researches, with an eye towards uncovering the truth. A true activist would be willing to admit if the facts combined to offer a different version of the truth than the one they had anticipated.
Couric, the woman at the townn hall meeting, Gibson - they all asked legitimate questions. The danger - and it is a danger - is in allowing McCain to pretend it's 'Got cha' journalism. And allowing McCain to identify that as somehow false or dismissable.
Anyways, thaks for pointing out how my words could be interpreted.
richard
Post a Comment