I'm always talking about how President Obama does not give the political journalists enough controversy from week to week. Well, with all of the legislative battles taking place in Washington, it would have been hard to prove my theory earlier in the year.
However, turn to the political shows now. Take your pick. FOX, CNN, MSNBC has a plethora of them every afternoon. What are they talking about? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The pundits keep trying to drum up controversy over what President Obama saide about Vick, but is that all they have? Really, that's all they have. President Obama is in Hawaii enjoying a shaved ice cream treat and keeping his briefings and other official dealings away from the prying eye of the public. That leaves the pundits with a ratings rotten egg.
So, whether you are coming from the Left or the Right, before you criticize the President on anything, turn down the volume on your television. Though I am a liberal-leaning Southern Democrat, even I have learned to turn down the yacking. Those shows exist to stir up controversy instead of representing the true views of most Americans, which are right in the middle. But, if you notice, reader, there's a reason why it's called the "boring middle...."It's bad for ratings.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Exactly How Many Political Pundit Shows Did We Have in the 1980s and 1990s?
For the life of me, I cannot name more than four politically-driven shows from the 1980s and early 1990s. Let's see, there was "Washington Week" on PBS, "Face the Nation" on CBS, "Meet the Press" on NBC, and "This Week" on ABC. That's it. Unless my memory fails me and there's more, but we only got politics on Sunday morning. One hour on each network. I knew who the president was in the 1980s, the iconic Ronald Reagan, but America did not see him on television every day. As the 1980s drew to a close and George Bush I became our president, we didn't see his face on television every day, either. Instead, we saw the REAL Gulf War, and we heard about it from real soldiers and saw the real sands of the desert instead of Saturday morning cartoons.
Then in 1992, a young president named Bill Clinton took office. He was every Republican's nightmare. They went on a crusade, following each and every scandal, trying to dig up something that would impeach him. In 1996, a new network, FOX news, sprang up and it followed these details, exclusively. It started a crusade against the "liberal news media," and claimed to be both fair and balanced. If offered conservative political pundits, people who questioned Clinton's sexual life as well as his domestic/foreign policies.
It did not take CNN long to also follow FOX. And for the first time in our nation's history, we saw the President on television every day. Every day was a new episode in the live-action soap opera that was the Clinton Whitehouse. From Hillary's horrendous outfits to the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the government shut-down, there was always something new. Every day.
Then, George Bush II came to office in 2000. Though MSNBC and FOX were roughly founded at the same time, MSNBC began to be a counterbalance to FOX in 2001 by publicly offering more progressive-leaning opinion shows and news. While FOX only offered glittering generalities of the Bush-Cheney Whitehouse, political pundits on MSNBC rose to fame by pointing out the deep flaws of Republican-driven, Reagan-inspired Bush-Cheney policies. And so, once again, we saw our president on television. Every day.
Then came the 2008 Presidential campaign. It was so exciting. So divisive. So filled with distrust and strife. It made for good news. Every day. I mean, I put in 20 hours per week or more between FOX, CNN, and MSNBC. After the election, I was thoroughly let down because I didn't have anything else on television to watch. Then Obama was elected. A cerebral candidate. One who views the chess board from a thousand different angles before he makes a move. One who does not give the press privy to his sharp political intellectualism. One who does not give the press a story. Every day.
After almost two decades of seeing our leaders on television. Every day. We have one who takes his time and refuses to feed into the 24/7 world of media division and political punditry. On the left and the right, we've gotten so accustomed to seeing our Presidents. Every day. That we call Obama's deliberateness a lack of leadership. Is it a lack of leadership, or a lack of a news story which angers us? Several times, on the Left and the Right, media outlets have written President Obama off, saying what he's going to do before he even has a meeting about what he's going to do. For instance, The Huffington Post ran a story saying that President Obama caved on tax cuts for the rich, and he wasn't even in the country and had not met with any of the negotiating parties involved.
Instead of seeing the war on television so that we can empathize with our soldiers, we see a bunch of political pundits talking about how there's a lack of leadership and confusing vision concerning the war. Instead of waiting on a word from the President, the media, on both sides, hangs onto every word even a Whitehouse staffer may say. There are times when I see them literally stretching the smallest details in order to drum up controversy and ratings.
Pundits on the left and the right should be thankful for Sarah Palin. Lord knows she says enough silly things to keep them taking, and that's why she receives so much political news on both sides: our current President is not giving FOX News any controversy by participating in any sexual affairs, and the Vice President is not giving MSNBC any news by shooting somebody in the face.
Then in 1992, a young president named Bill Clinton took office. He was every Republican's nightmare. They went on a crusade, following each and every scandal, trying to dig up something that would impeach him. In 1996, a new network, FOX news, sprang up and it followed these details, exclusively. It started a crusade against the "liberal news media," and claimed to be both fair and balanced. If offered conservative political pundits, people who questioned Clinton's sexual life as well as his domestic/foreign policies.
It did not take CNN long to also follow FOX. And for the first time in our nation's history, we saw the President on television every day. Every day was a new episode in the live-action soap opera that was the Clinton Whitehouse. From Hillary's horrendous outfits to the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the government shut-down, there was always something new. Every day.
Then, George Bush II came to office in 2000. Though MSNBC and FOX were roughly founded at the same time, MSNBC began to be a counterbalance to FOX in 2001 by publicly offering more progressive-leaning opinion shows and news. While FOX only offered glittering generalities of the Bush-Cheney Whitehouse, political pundits on MSNBC rose to fame by pointing out the deep flaws of Republican-driven, Reagan-inspired Bush-Cheney policies. And so, once again, we saw our president on television. Every day.
Then came the 2008 Presidential campaign. It was so exciting. So divisive. So filled with distrust and strife. It made for good news. Every day. I mean, I put in 20 hours per week or more between FOX, CNN, and MSNBC. After the election, I was thoroughly let down because I didn't have anything else on television to watch. Then Obama was elected. A cerebral candidate. One who views the chess board from a thousand different angles before he makes a move. One who does not give the press privy to his sharp political intellectualism. One who does not give the press a story. Every day.
After almost two decades of seeing our leaders on television. Every day. We have one who takes his time and refuses to feed into the 24/7 world of media division and political punditry. On the left and the right, we've gotten so accustomed to seeing our Presidents. Every day. That we call Obama's deliberateness a lack of leadership. Is it a lack of leadership, or a lack of a news story which angers us? Several times, on the Left and the Right, media outlets have written President Obama off, saying what he's going to do before he even has a meeting about what he's going to do. For instance, The Huffington Post ran a story saying that President Obama caved on tax cuts for the rich, and he wasn't even in the country and had not met with any of the negotiating parties involved.
Instead of seeing the war on television so that we can empathize with our soldiers, we see a bunch of political pundits talking about how there's a lack of leadership and confusing vision concerning the war. Instead of waiting on a word from the President, the media, on both sides, hangs onto every word even a Whitehouse staffer may say. There are times when I see them literally stretching the smallest details in order to drum up controversy and ratings.
Pundits on the left and the right should be thankful for Sarah Palin. Lord knows she says enough silly things to keep them taking, and that's why she receives so much political news on both sides: our current President is not giving FOX News any controversy by participating in any sexual affairs, and the Vice President is not giving MSNBC any news by shooting somebody in the face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)