[jholmes]

Is anybody getting anything out of these debates?

I certainly can't see the undecided 10% getting any constructive information with which to make a choice. Last night felt like a toss-up between vanilla fudge and fudge vanilla. Gore appeared to win the debate but where's the drama in that? The Bush camp considers it a major success when their candidate correctly pronounces Pennsylvania. After all those years in the Senate, all Gore should have to do to win the debate is not mention that he was the sixth man to walk on the moon. I guess the fact that he might actually do that keeps it interesting.

So how are these "ordinary undecided voters" that the talking heads go to after the main event supposed to make up their minds?
"Oh gee Tom, I thought Bush had on a good looking tie and he didn't shuffle his papers much, so I'm leaning towards him..."

Please. Hurry November.

[Don Pickett]

I plan to vote for Graham Chapman.

Don

[mac freak]

I'll vote for Bob Dole.

------------------
Be Happy.

[Scott_H]

I got a good laugh out of it.

Why do the experts say Bush won? Did they watch the same thing I did? What did he win, a door prize? I'm not sure which one I'll vote for (or against?) but there's no way Bush is winning the debates.

[mac freak]

I think Bush won the first one, but Gore had the edge in this one. I'm bent on voting for Notbush, with no one in particular in mind...
Heck, maybe I'll be part of the 2/3 of the country that doesn't vote this time around (last year, only 36% of the eligible popoulation voted).

------------------
Be Happy.

I think they said bush won this one because all the "Snap" pulls showed that people felt he won by a pretty big margin.

Also they did a poll that asked the same people before and then after the Debate who they would vote for if they had to vote now and Bush's number went up while Gore's number went down.

This is pretty good indication that Gore lost... even if it is a poll...

don't forget that most all the major networks (ABC, NBC) are very liberal. So it is a surprise that they would even post this info that Bush won.

I guess it was pretty obvious though... that he won.

Gore's problem is that he keeps showing a different personality every time he is up. He almost looked drugged in this last debate. However, it wouldn't surprise me.... lol

[bood69]

jholmes,

To answer the question, I think Bernard Shaw does a better job moderating.....he would get my vote.

[yoyo52]

on the other hand, Lehrer is from Texas too

[wlonh]

Mickey Mouse is always an option... and just look how popular he has been all these years

[Don Pickett]

don't forget that most all the major networks (ABC, NBC) are very liberal. So it is a surprise that they would even post this info that Bush won.

Nope. The myth of the liberal media is still hanging tough, but it ain't true anymore. The three big networks are all owned by three larger, multinational corporations, and it shows. They are, at best, centrist, and sometimes downright conservative. Pay attention to which stories they cover and which they don't. It makes for an interesting comparison.

The media has been swinging back to the right since the Reagan years, when the New York Times bent itself backwards to kiss Reagan's butt - they actually pulled a reoprter out of Central America because they didn't want to run his coverage of U.S.trained and backed death squads running amok. Most national coverage is centrist as well, usually supporting the majority view at the expense of alternatives.

If you want more unbiased coverage you're gonna have to do your homework, read (yes, read) from a wide variety of media outlets, and make up your own mind.

And, by the way, I wouldn't trust Bush to make proper change, much less run the country.

Don

[CaseCom]

For a lot of people, "unbiased coverage" is coverage that reflects their own biases. I've actually heard people say that the only "unbiased" U.S. news operation is Fox News Channel. It's all in where you're coming from.

As for Jim Lehrer, his eyes creep me out too much.

[wlonh]

too true, and i admit that there really is no such thing as unbiased coverage, everyone has an agenda... it is the less than obvious agendas that scare me... the evilly hidden agendas: saying one thing and covertly (more or less covertly... more, if successful in hiding the agenda) doing the other... nudge, nudge, wink, wink i wonder who i might be referring to?
and though both candidates are guilty as charged, there is one who recently hails from a particularly polluted southern state who has no shame when it comes to hidden agendas

and yeah CaseCom, Lehrer's eyes bug me out too heh heh

Hillary has her eyes set on the next presidency, have you seen how wide open they are since Rudy dropped from the NY senate race?

[bood69]

"particularly polluted southern state"

That's pretty low, dude.

[jholmes]

bood -
As much as I hate to agree with wlonh -- he's right. Pollution in Texas is a serious concern.

A big problem with air quality in the urban areas is that with SUV sales going nuts over the last 8 years, "the environmental administration" has done zip to close the loophole in the FEDERAL law that allows these vehicles to meet much less stringent pollution standards than ordinary cars. And the sad part is most people who drive them don't know they are polluting more than the guy in the station wagon in the next lane.


[This message has been edited by jholmes (edited 10-14-2000).]

[yoyo52]

One reason that FEDERAL law doesn't get changed is that the folks who manufacture the g-d SUVs and the folks who produce the gasoline that those g-d SUVs waste give hundreds of millions of dollars to the politicians who make the laws.

Another reason is that conservative, republican-led congressional delegations don't want to vote to change the law regardless of whether or not they get money from the companies for electoral purposes. Why should they? Think of Dick Cheney, Mr. "I earned my wealth in private business not from government." Exactly how much money did Cheney's company, Halliburton, make from Cheney's washington connections? And how much of that went into Cheney's wealth?

I'm not suggesting that there's any shady dealing in all this. It's all legal and legitimate. After all, the folks who wrote the laws that make such behavior legal and legitimate are the very folks who own the wealth of the country. And of course that kind of legal framework makes it almost impossible for legislators to buck the corporate trend. So, no, the FEDERAL government has not changed the laws concerning SUVs, and probably will not do so until it becomes obvious that the people who elect them have caught onto the sleazy game.

But then, the same problem obtains in education, which by the late 20th century in America has become little more than training for business. It's all done in the name of practicality and of streamlining the entry of students into the work place, but what it adds up to is an educational system the purpose of which is less and less to educate and more and more to convert students into cogs in the military -industiral complex. How odd that Eisenhowerian phrase sounds nowadays. Is there anything else besides the military industrial complex? The result can be seen in elzinat's thread on how dumb america can be.

I have nothing against training--please do not misunderstand me. But training is not the same thing as education. There's nothing practical about being able to read a platonic dialogue--in fact, to the extent that Plato makes the reader think critically about his or her own life, reading Plato may well be exactly the opposite of practical. Reading Plato makes the life of any authority--in government of business or in any other setting--much more difficult. The same goes for any education that's worthy of the name. But education in that real sense is absolutely essential to a free people. You can train a dog to salivate on command, and you can train a person to become a concentration camp guard--but you can't train for the act of rebellion that frees dog or person from external controls. That's what a good education accomplishes. That's why, once trained, a dog will never change, but a human can and will change if he or she learns how to think outside of his or her training.

I'm perfectly aware that the sort of education that I think is so essential to freedom does not depend on academic instutions alone. But education ought to be what academic instutions are concerned with just as the common welfare ought to be what government is concerned with. To the extent that money and influence have converted academic institutions into just another branch of business and government into business's farm team, to that extent we are doomed to a deeper and steeper descent into tyranny by the few.

[This message has been edited by yoyo52 (edited 10-14-2000).]

[Gregg]

The myth of the liberal media is still hanging tough, but it ain't true anymore. The three big networks are all owned by three larger, multinational corporations, and it shows.

Ain't no myth. All you have to do is read or listen. The left leaning bias is pervasive, but you have to pay attention. Every article I've ever seen dealing with the views of individual journalists says that the vast majority vote Democratic, are idealistic (in the liberal sense), and got into the business to effect change in society. Ownership is not the key issue, it's what is printed or broadcast. My local paper has regularly endorsed Democratic candidates by far over Republicans. The only way you could say they aren't biased is if the "score" was nearly even on endorsements. It ain't even close.

[yoyo52]

could it be that the endorsements reflect actual ability and experience?

Gregg,

Your local paper may be liberal in tone, but the statement about the myth of the liberal media was talking about the major networks. Those are the ones owned by the megacorps, and are absolutely not allowed to stray off the beaten path. The head of ABC news, for instance, was quoted in an interview where he admitted ABC could not cover certain stories that Disney would find offensive.

Individual reporters may be liberal, and I've read that too, but what gets on the air reflects corporate tastes, not what reporters want to put on the air.

So if your local paper is liberal, be glad, for that means you get a different perspective from what the major networks are allowed to have nowadays. The old liberal media concept is rapidly dying in today's corporate climate.

[Gregg]

QUOTE: .....the major networks. Those are the ones owned by the megacorps, and are absolutely not allowed to stray off the beaten path. The head of ABC news, for instance, was quoted in an interview where he admitted ABC could not cover certain stories that Disney would find offensive.

Individual reporters may be liberal, and I've read that too, but what gets on the air reflects corporate tastes, not what reporters want to put on the air.


That's the biggest bunch of bunk, plain and simple. You're preaching to one who is impossible to convert. Didn't you read my statement that said ownership is *not* the issue? Issues that Disney would find offensive? Like controversy over one of their subsidiaries movies? So what! Especially the last statement quoted above, when applied to the political arena, is way out of touch with reality. Why has ABC's analysis of the debates, for example, been contradicted by the public surveys in the days following? Easy, ABC puts their liberal reporters on the air, who say what they think, and the electorate is to the right (not saying how far) of them. Prince Peter even admitted *on the air* after the first debate, that ABC's analysis was quite different than that of the general population. Now, aren't all big, bad corporations (corporate board members) staunch conservatives? Your analysis does not hold water.

Gregg

"That's the biggest bunch of bunk, plain and simple."

No, it isn't.

"You're preaching to one who is impossible to convert."

Ah, here we see the problem.

"Didn't you read my statement that said ownership is *not* the issue?"

Yes, and I disagree, based on what I've read from the head of ABC news.

"Issues that Disney would find offensive? Like controversy over one of their subsidiaries movies? So what!"

No, corporate problems. Unpopular corporate moves. Those were the sorts of examples given by the head of ABC news.

" Especially the last statement quoted above, when applied to the political arena, is way out of touch with reality. Why has ABC's analysis of the debates, for example, been contradicted by the public surveys in the days following?"

Uh, because everyone seems to think neither candidate dominated, and therefore opinions are all over the map instead of the usual consensus? Also because opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate.

"Easy, ABC puts their liberal reporters on the air, who say what they think, and the electorate is to the right (not saying how far) of them. Prince Peter even admitted *on the air* after the first debate, that ABC's analysis was quite different than that of the general population. Now, aren't all big, bad corporations (corporate board members) staunch conservatives? Your analysis does not hold water."

Read what I wrote. I didn't say that the voice of the network news is all conservate, but that it is trending that way. The myth of the liberal media is that it still is the way it used to be. It's rapidly being transformed before our eyes. Reports that used to get told are now being stopped. Stories are being held back. That is the trend, not to upset the corporations that pay the bills. It's been noted, and admitted, by those who run the news. Their words, not mine.

[Gregg]

All I see are your words. I guess it would be hard to prove a bias from what is not reported, except in cases where some media report a story, and others don't. It is far easier to see bias in what is reported, and how it is reported. In the political coverage, listen to the bias. It is almost always to the left of center. So, we disagree on the importance of media ownership. I might suggest that the problem you see should be viewed in a mirror. From my perspective, your view is problematic. Since we both have our minds made up, and neither one of us is "open minded" enough to consider the other's point of view, we are at an impasse. Let me just compliment you for not resorting to name calling.


Gregg

P.S. I note that your screen name initials would be "PC"

"Since we both have our minds made up, and neither one of us is "open minded" enough to consider the other's point of view, we are at an impasse."

That's not quite fair. I considered your point of view. My argument is that we are talking at cross-purposes. You say the coverage is liberal, I say the trend is toward conservatism. We are both correct, but arguing different points. I didn't say the 'liberal media' concept has always been a myth, but that it is a dying myth. The trend is toward conservative coverage, and it is a recent trend. Not surprisingly, corporate ownership of the networks is a relatively recent development.

Why do I believe this? From watching. I see how they cover issues and stories I have a great deal of knowledge of. In such cases, besides being shocked at the shabbiness of their coverage in general, I've noticed how often they tend to echo the corporate party line. This does not negate the possibility of reporters having liberal biases, as I think many of them do. Naturally, a liberal voice will be heard on the networks. Just not as often as it once was.

"Let me just compliment you for not resorting to name calling."

Same here. I see no point in attacking a person when the point of contention is the idea, not the person putting forth the idea.

"P.S. I note that your screen name initials would be "PC" "

Very coincidental. I am in no way a PC person. I speak my mind, regardless of what others think, although I don't try to be offensive.

[Gregg]

Ok, "PC" that gives me a better understanding of your point of view. I enjoyed the exchange. I would think that the trend you are observing is not found within the political coverage, but more in stories on society and business. I haven't observed it, but because of this dialog, I will no doubt "tune in" to that more sharply.

Gregg

[Don Pickett]

If you want to see just how skewed mainstream media coverage is, pick an issue - any issue, doesn't matter, as long as it's one which insterests you - and read the mainstream media coverage. Now go and find "alternative" media, both liberal and conservative, and read their coverage of the issue.

Once you cut through the BS, and there will be BS on both sides, you will see that the mainstream media coverage is biased in terms of social, conservative norms. A good one to pick might be the protests against the WTO, which should give widely divergent points of view. Both the conservative and liberal "alternative" press will probably give much more in-depth, detailed and fearless coverage of the events and their surroundings than will mainstream media.

The way in which the mainstream bias is most evident is in what the mainstream media chooses not to report on. A famous example is the New York Times pulling a reporter out of Central America in the 80s because they didn't want him reporting on the American trained and backed death squads operating in the region. There are other, recent, historical examples - underreporting/ignoring in the first years of the AIDS epidemic, consistent underreporting and plain getting facts wrong in coverage of third party presidential candidates, underreoprting/ignoring Iraqi casualties and ancillary damage in the Gulf War, 60 Minutes being forced to pull a piece about the cigarette industry because of the fear of CBS legal (The Insider is a great movie about this) - where one can see this process in action. Mainstream press bows to the wishes of advertisers and the goverment when choosing what to cover.

The only way to get a big picture is to read widely. Get your hands on everything you can and make up your own mind, but for god's sake don't think that ABC or CBS will tell you the whole story.

Don

"I would think that the trend you are observing is not found within the political coverage, but more in stories on society and business."

That's probably correct. The trend wouldn't show in politics as much since both Republicans and Democrats, to greater or lesser degrees, support corporate causes. Therefore there is no need to push an agenda with either candidate on that basis, and thus the reporters natural inclinations could have more sway.

And Don's point is well taken: The mainstream press generally does a very bad job of giving us the whole story. This wasn't readily apparent to the casual observer until the rise of the Net which gave us access to much more detailed information from both ends of the spectrum. If a person today relies entirely on network news, they are woefully uninformed.

[Gregg]

Ok, but to return to the question posed by the topic line. Jim Lehrer is too much of a gentleman to be in politics. Now, I know that was not a serious proposal, but Lehrer let himself be controlled by the candidates, especially Al Bore, er Gore. Jim was more forceful in the final debate, and it was about time.

I'm a stickler for rules, and I was appalled by Gore's tactics. He intentionally, repeatedly violated the agreement made by both sides as to what was out of bounds. He won points with his supporters for doing so, but may have lost some ground overall. It now appears that more conservative voters have awakened, and the polls are moving Bush's way. the small block of undecided voters seem to be moving to Gore, but it's not helping him to stay even.

Bush was no Mr. Roberts Rules himself, but seemed to be drawn into violating the rules by way of protecting himself from Gore's aggressive tactics. It's no surprise that the Liberal Media did not focus on Gore's obvious rule breaking in their post-debate analysis. Ok, so it may not be as big a deal to others as it is to me, but that baffles me. If Gore will break a "gentleman's agreement" then what else will he do that's outside the rules? Oh yeah, make campaign phone calls from his government office, and bow down to Buddah for money at a "non fund raising" fund raiser. But, there is a controlling legal authority this time. It's called the ballot. Let's see if Al can pirouette around that one!

Gregg

[Don Pickett]

It's no surprise that the Liberal Media did not focus on Gore's obvious rule breaking in their post-debate analysis.

Check out the New York Post from the day after the debate. They damn near lynched him. In fact, the Post is a very conservative paper. Barrons published pro-apartheid articles, and The New York Times is investigating realms of stodginess never before seen.

The Post, by the way, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who has gotten into hot water twice that I know of for attempting to make newspapers under his control relfect his conservative views. Once at the Voice, which he ultimately sold, and once at the Post, where he was soundly raked over the coals.

Edward R. Murrow, where are you?

Don

"Ok, so it may not be as big a deal to others as it is to me, but that baffles me. If Gore will break a "gentleman's agreement" then what else will he do that's outside the rules? "

Point taken, but that brings up something that has been baffling me for a couple of years now: When did the prevailing wisdom in this country change such that we are shocked, SHOCKED that our politicians lie? I mean, what else will Gore do outside the rules? How about what else will Bush do, or anybody in the Senate or in Congress? Since when did politicians get the rep for being truth-tellers? They are known for saying whatever they need to say to get elected.

My personal theory, still in the development stage, is that Clinton did what every politician has always done, but did it in such an overtly sleazy manner that it made people sick. I mean, he's not the first President to have sex in the White House with some floozy. He's not the first to get caught in lies. But he's such a polarizing figure that the right wing, very hypocritically in my opinion, took the opportunity to pretend that such behavior was appalling.

In the early 90s, it was common knowledge that politicians were liars, and that campaign promises were made to be broken. We would see polls showing people trusted politicians less than just about any other group. Now people seem upset when they break the rules, as if this is some earth-shaking new development in politics. I'm truly puzzled over this change in opinion. I mean, it's not as if the general public has suddenly changed their behavior, but they sure are pretending that it's important for politicians to tell the truth.

Fact is, no matter who gets elected in November, they will go back on their campaign promises, they will get caught doing something stupid, their poll ratings will fall, and nothing whatsoever will have changed in the world of politics.

[Don Pickett]

Point taken, but that brings up something that has been baffling me for a couple of years now: When did the prevailing wisdom in this country change such that we are shocked, SHOCKED that our politicians lie? I mean, what else will Gore do outside the rules? How about what else will Bush do, or anybody in the Senate or in Congress? Since when did politicians get the rep for being truth-tellers? They are known for saying whatever they need to say to get elected.

My personal theory, still in the development stage, is that Clinton did what every politician has always done, but did it in such an overtly sleazy manner that it made people sick. I mean, he's not the first President to have sex in the White House with some floozy. He's not the first to get caught in lies. But he's such a polarizing figure that the right wing, very hypocritically in my opinion, took the opportunity to pretend that such behavior was appalling.

I am somewhat in agreement with you. Go to the library and look at a newspaper from 100 years ago. You will see the same exact headlines: society's going to hell, the younger generation is no good, and, most of all, article after article lambasting politicians. The idea that politicans are somehow more than human is mistaken.

I think Clinton just did what all politicans, and many people do - he has problems in his marriage, problems with his weight, problems in general. His weren't hidden, though, which is different than JFK and FDR (both of whom had mistresses, many in JFK's case) and the other politicans we idolize. This is some of the fallout from Watergate - the private lives of politicans are no longer off-limits.

I think the most interetsing comment I saw on the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was the response from the European newspapers. The take from the French press was something like, "duh, he had an affair - he's a politician," and the German reaction was a statement to the effect of, "we do not report on the private lives of our politicians." And the last polls I saw showed that something like 3/4s of the country didn't really care that he had an affair, and felt it was between he and Hillary to iron out, which is the way I feel.

I think the whole thing was blown out of proportion, and I agree that the conservatives made a big deal out of it, and, furthermore, they got caught in the crossfire. Witness the resignation of the Speaker of the House (can't remember his name right now) and the flaming fireball Newt's political career turned into. My favorite line about this comes from my best friend, who said, "If the president of IBM has an affair, do I give a **** ? No, as long as the company's doing well. Same for the president."

Don

[Gregg]

Look, Bob Packwood got run out of the Senate for alot less. And Bob Livingston resigned before being appointed Speaker for something private that happened years ago, and had been resolved. Clinton's behavior *was* appalling, no pretense required. He took an oath (in the depositions) which he violated as well. That was a more serious offense to the American people than his personal indiscretions. But, the controversy always was whether or not he should ever have been required to answer those questions.


...I'm out of time.

[Don Pickett]

That was a more serious offense to the American people than his personal indiscretions

It wasn't that serious of an offense. 3/4 of the American public thought the thing was overblown, me included.

Politicians lie; always have, always will. That doesn't mean that they won't do good jobs. It doesn't even mean they're bad people. It's a part of the job, and we play right along. We vote for people because of their campaign "promises," and complain when they break them, even though I doubt any of us have seen a president who kept his "promises". We listen when politicans give us impossibly simplistic answers for complex for problems, and then most people probably vote from their gut, anyway.

The bad news is this is the way it's always been. The good news is we've made it two hundred plus years thus far.

Don

[Don Pickett]

Home from work now. More thinking has happened.

One of the issues here seems to be presidents breaking the law and getting away with it. There is a corollary issue about thinking politicians are somehow different than the populace, that they will somehow be more heroic in the face of the stresses of their jobs.

Yes, presidents break the law, and, yes, so do most of us every day. How many people on this forum bought and registered every piece of software on their machines, especially the really expensive stuff - you know, like Photoshop and Final Cut Pro? How many people paid for every Type 1 font they have and use? If you didn't you are in violation of United States and International copyright laws, and can be arrested and fined.

Let's open this up a little. How many people here always drive the speed limit? How many people here get baked once and a while, or wait(ed) until the legal drinking age to consume alcohol? How many people report all of the cash they get paid for freelance work, or include in their tax write-offs those expenses which were strictly business? How many people here have cheated on a husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend?

Chances are good - good enough for me to bet a month's Manhattan rent - that no one here follows the law to the letter, and that most of us have done, or do, one or more of the things I mentioned. The point here is that none of us follow the law with anything like a rational approach. We follow the big laws - don't kill, don't steal big stuff, don't break into people's houses - and the small stuff is negotiable.

Basically, law and government is a fiction. The law gives us a place to officially register social norms and affect some general behavior control. Between two thirds to three fourths of the people in this country believe that women should have the right to a safe, legal abortion - that's the law. Almost everyone in the country believes that murder is bad - that's the law. Areas in which we are not so sure - assisted suicide and drug laws - are reflected in the gray areas in the law around those points.

Goverment, on a national level, exists to do all the clerical stuff needed to run a country, and to give people who like that stuff a job. Someone has to figure out the federal budget, pass the laws people want passed, appoint judges, and so on. But to think that the government runs the country in a strict sense is ridiculous. If everyone in the country decided tomorrow that it was okay to walk around completely naked, there is not a think the government could, or would, do about it.

So to expect the people we elect to public office to behave any differently than you or me is ridiculous, and to expect them to behave rationally is plain stupid. Did Bill get stoned in the 60s? I hope so. Did he mess up his marriage in public? Yup. Does that surprise me? No. He's a human, like you and me, and I think it's better we know our leaders are fallible and corruptible than to think they're some kind of supermen and women.

And, as an aside, Bill lying about it doesn't bother me. Oliver North and the Reagan Cabinet knowingly suborning the Constituion of the United States (called treason the last time I looked) bothers me.

Don