What They (The Media) Missed - Unfair

The new DNC ad which associates John McCain with the desire for a 100 year war is patently in accurate. In context, John McCain suggested that STAYING in Iraq for 100 years was an option. He clearly stated that continued armed conflict would not be something that would be acceptable to the American people. Again, he specifically stated that "war" in the conventional sense beyond even 4 years was likely not desirable, sustainable, or acceptable. No subtlety in context is even required. A few sentences after his "maybe 100 years" answer to a town hall meeting attendee question in New Hampshire, he clearly stated that armed conflict for an extended period of time was not something he felt he would have the political capital to pursue. McCain did, however, assert that having a long-standing presence in the region was key to American interests. As Vipul Vyas mentioned on the skewz.com podcast, debating the merits of staying in Iraq is a better and more accurate focus.



Sphere: Related Content

Unconventional Widom - Imbalance

A week ago or so now, John McCain was asked by george stephanopoulos about his relationship with Pastor Hagee. John McCain answered the question dismissively by saying he disagreed with certain of Hagee's stances but enthusiastically accepted the support of the religious leader. McCain suggested that Obama's long standing personal relationship with Reverend Wright is more questionable than his acceptance of Hagee's endorsement. This late statement is in itself questionable. Barrack Obama may have joined Trinity Church for political expediency to further entrench himself in the poor African-American community in Chicago. His long association with Wright was a devil's bargain to provide him greater access and insight into the community he had hoped to serve as a community organizer. But in the same vein, McCain's active seeking of Hagee's endorsement and the endorsement of other religious zealots is in no different. In fact, it may even be worse. McCain new the liabilities of these religious fanatics yet sought their endorsements anyway to shore up his religious right credentials. The only difference is that McCain seems much more accepting of that bargain. Hate-speech for the vote of hate-values voters seemed to be a fair bargain. Obama did not exploit his Reverand Wright relationship in the same way. In addition, as has been mentioned by users on Skewz.com; Wright is not plugged into the political party power structure in the same way as folks like Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, and Hagee have been. As such, the level of influence right and McCain's associations with right-wing extremists who hate gays and Catholics seems to be more of a national issue. However, the coverage of this association is notably lacking. The only standing difference appears to be that of race which gives some credence to Wright's comments.

In addition, a great deal of focus attention had been paid to Fox News' Obama watch. Such theatrics are not acceptable of serious news organizations. But Fox News has never been a serious news organization. Little mention has been made by this same "serious" news organization as to why the Obama campaign did not feel compelled to show up on any of the networks "interview" shows. Earlier in the campaign the Fox News morning show "Fox and Friends" moved a story from the blogosphere around Obama attending an Islamic religious school as a child. Steve Doocey exclaimed with excitement that this was "huge." CNN, as a more serious news organization, visited the school and learned that it was an areligious public school that was not allowed to be partial to any particular set of religious teachings. The story was simply bogus. But what was clear was that Fox had wished it to be true so badly that no investigation was necessary. After the incident, Obama's campaign clearly deduced that Fox News had no other intent aside from using any technique possible to destroy his candidacy. Who in their right mind would associated with such an organization. Wright would seem like a better choice.

The real question is whether Hagee's end-times preaching which suggests that a war with Iran in the near future will hail Armageddon influences McCain's foreign policy.



Sphere: Related Content

What They (The Media) Missed - Does Fox Have An Investment in the 2008 Election's Outcome?

The answer sure seems to be 'yes.' The current "Obama Watch" silliness is not exactly high-minded journalism. What's the point? Is the point to suggest that Obama can't handle tough questions? Maybe...but he's already gotten his fair share of those from ABC News courtesy of the recent debate in Pennsylvania. Tough questions can come from any quarter. What is the real point of "Obama Watch?" The point seems to be humiliation. Fox has repeatedly run stories about Obama being educated in an Islamic school and of Obama's middle name being Hussein with the clear code being, "he's different, he's weird, he's not one of us." The "watch" has been going on for over a year now. The real question would be why a presidential candidate would not want to try to get his message across via a media outlet that commands such a large and loyal following. The answer seems obvious but just can't seem to be spoken. Why Obama would not go on Fox News is a question on par with why John McCain would not go on the air with Air America (if Air America had a significant audience). Fox essentially has made a mission out of being the "mainstream" end of an echo chamber that starts from AM Radio and the blogosphere. That echo chamber largely seems oriented at destroying Obama.

Fox's efforts to demonize Obama will be interesting to watch over coming months should he win the nomination. Interestingly, no critical stories for the GOP (or Fox) candidate John McCain seem to be forthcoming from the network. Instead, the network seems focused on providing the damage control air cover for any McCain campaign misstep. At some point the observation conservatives had made that the people see through media will hold true for Fox as well. Sphere: Related Content

What They (The Media) Missed - I Just Made It Up, But You Should Believe It

John McCain's March gaffe of associating Iran with supporting Al Quaeda was barely a news event. It's clearly out of the new cycle now.

But just for a second, let's take a time machine back to the day of the statement. What would have happened if Joe Lieberman had not corrected McCain? In someways Lieberman's correction was likely the real news event. It's very likely that if Lieberman had not so publicly corrected his friend, the news media may never have picked up on the fundamentally flawed understanding of the complex ground dynamics of the war in Iraq. What McCain said would have hit the appropriate echo chambers and become truth. Iran supports Al Quaeda just as Saddam supported Al Quaeda. The ability to create a truth by stating it was a hallmark characteristic of the war in Iraq:

- weapons of mass destruction are a clear and present threat
- al quaeda and Iraq have a long standing relationship
- creating democracy in Iraq will lead to the proliferation of democracy in the region
- the war will pay for itself

Only after many of these statements are so utterly shattered by empirical evidence is there validity even questioned. However, wouldn't testing these hypotheses be more valuable prior to taking irrevocable action. Isn't testing the validity of these statements the job of the press? The clear fear is that Joe Lieberman inadvertently did the job of the press. But what if Joe was not there? We can wonder...


Sphere: Related Content

Unconventional Wisdom - The New Politically Correct

The POPLINE health database administered by one of the nation's premier universities recently dropped the word "abortion" as a valid search term as part of its reproductive health database.

Huh?

Whether one agrees with the act of abortion or not, abortion is an issue of reproductive health. The funding agency for the database was USAID. The agency cannot provide federal aid to any organization that promotes abortion. This directive began under the Reagan administration and was revived in 2001 by the Bush administration.

Clearly, there are new words we can or cannot say. Even referring to abortion in a scientific setting can promote it apparently. Just as many on the right have complained about the stifling new "Robert's Rules of Order" that have emerged in public discourse called "political correctness," a new set of commandments are emerging that suggest there are certain things that cannot be said such as abortion or global warming.

Political correctness is often blamed for why certain competing ideas do not take greater hold in the scientific community. Ideas such as intelligent design, global warming, passive smoking, etc. However, fighting back with a politically correct lexicon of your own is not a solution...it's just revenge.


Sphere: Related Content