Lipstick and the Dodo (among other things)

LIPSTICK AND THE DODO

What do lipstick and the Dodo have in common? They're both dead, gone, extinct, kaput. For weeks, all the news was was lipstick and exotic foods (arugula is indeed, grown in Iowa). But now, the real world has come crashing down onto the election coverage. Now, the economic woes on Wall Street and multiple crisis brewing in Pakistan over possible U.S. incursions have forced the campaigns and the outlets that cover them to actually look at the issues. While some of the major outlets were already beginning to come around, it's kind of sad (but not necessarily surprising) that it's taking something with the force of a sledgehammer like this to force the news to look at each candidate's stance on the issues. ABCnews.com ran an article that took a great look at this, urging people to watch for the paradigm shift coming from the mainstream media. All I can say is, it's about time.

THIS IS YOUR NATION ON WHITE PRIVILEGE

Recently, I was made aware of an article by anti-racism activist Tim Wise entitled: "This Is Your Nation On White Privilege" . Wise takes a brutal critique of the double standards that exist for whites and blacks, not only in the realm of politics, but in most aspects of daily life. It's pretty shameful that these things continue to happen, especially because when you read the article, it's pretty clear the media is responsible for the points in this article that can be related to the political realm for not recognizing this, critiquing it, and then changing it and making sure it ceases to happen. I think this is one of the most biting and insightful articles I have read in a long time, and it deserves to be disseminated as far as it can go into mainstream society. Please click the above link and take a read.

HOORAY FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

I love when mainstream journalists take in upon themselves to criticize the media. On September 20, NYT writer Nicholas Kristof wrote an article about how people still believe Obama is Muslim, and therefore distrust him. It's a sad state of things that 13 percent of people still believe that against all evidence, that Obama is a Muslim. But the best part is the last paragraph where he says, "Journalists need to do more than call the play-by-play this election cycle. We also need to blow the whistle on such egregious fouls calculated to undermine the political process and magnify the ugliest prejudices that our nation has done so much to overcome." I couldn't agree more. Finally, someone gets it.

Tip 'O The Cap (to quote Colbert)

Thank God for the Annenberg Political Fact check. It's so refreshing to be able to go to a well-known political website and see the debunking of both candidates that goes on there. Thank God at least someone remembers that there is a responsibility to referee the political discourse, instead of just be led along by the nose like most other news outlets.

Every day I click on the site, I am rewarded with numerous articles telling me where the candidates got it wrong on the trail, and actually backing it up. For example: a September 12 article explains how Sarah Palin's recent claims that the state of Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy is utterly false. In fact, Alaska produces 3.5 percent of U.S. domestic energy. I don't know about you, but the last time I checked 20 and 3.5 are not the same number. I don't know, they could have changed it on me.

The most refreshing thing though is that they don't just hammer away at McCain-Palin, they give it to Obama-Biden as well. Just yesterday, an article was published detailing how a new Obama-Biden ad describing McCain as wanting to cut Social Security benefits in half is extremely false. He in fact supported a Bush measure in 2005 wanting to hold down the growth of benefits, something affecting future seniors, not the current group it is aimed at.

Like I said, thank God for the Annenberg Fact Check. My only question is, why can't this information be displayed loud and proud in mainstream news sources? Why can't the people who get paid the big bucks to be trusted and respected journalists do this themselves? It is extremely irresponsible for not one news network to be reporting any of this stuff and refereeing the discourse.

But of course, if they did that, then they wouldn't be able to interview the candidates and toss them nice soft questions aimed at getting them back on the show instead of explaining anything. Wouldn't that be a shame.

Good Job CNN.com, shame on you ABCnews.com

Good job CNN.com, and I mean that literally. On the front page of the network's website, there are three different stories detailing how sleezy and incorrect the information coming out of the McCain campaign is. It has since come out the Sarah Palin was for her "bridge to no where" before it became a national embarrassment and then she was against it (of course, she still kept the federal money). Good job CNN for putting this on the front page of their website.

Another article gives voice to the Obama campaign's claim that McCain is running one of the dirtiest campaigns in history, higlighting the campaing's new spanish-language ad blaming Obama and the Democratic party for the lack of immigration reform in the last two years. Never mind the fact that both McCain and Obama cast the same vote in almost all of the legislation concerning immigration.

But the pennultimate article is one that begins by refuting Governor Palin's claims that she visited Iraq while governor. In fact, the Boston Globe first reported that Governor Palin never actually crossed the Kuwait-Iraq border, and that her supposed stop in Ireland on the same trip was merely one for refueling purposes, not an actual visit. Perhaps the best part of this article though, is the section that details the grilling about Palin that McCain recieved on "The View". Now, "The View" may not inspire visions of hard-hitting questions, but let's not forget that host Barbra Walters is a veteran of ABC News and a pioneer of women in journalism. She grilled McCain, asking him why there was no talk about the housing markets or the economy, and pointing out that she sold the private plane of the Alaska Governor's office at a loss to taxpayers. For actually putting these articles on their front page I say congrats CNN.

On the other hand, ABCnews.com has absolutely nothing about the falsehoods being put out by the McCain campaign, nor anything about Palin's record, only a short video of the Charlie Gibson interview. For not even putting anything remotely critiquing either campagin's conduct on the path to the election, I say shame on you ABCnews.com, way to fail at your job of informing voters of anything constructive that could affect their lives. Why even bother putting up the facade of being a news outlet if you're not going to do your job?

Lipstick on a Pig

Lipstick on pigs...the new lows to which our reporting on politics has sunk. it makes me sad to think of the giants that went before, names like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, and look at what our media has sunk to when discussing elections. It seems that news anchors on both cable and network news think that the only way they can get people to watch their shows is to report on the most trivial and inconsequential things they can find. Instead of holding an actual discourse on issue that affect people, things like war, the economy, health care and education, they are more focused on looking for the gaffes either real or conceived, that they can take and run with for days. I guess it's easier to talk about stupid things like that than actually do their job and referee what the candidates are saying, and getting them to talk about things that actually matter to people's lives.

The phrase "You can put lipstick on pig, but it's still a pig" is not a new political phrase. Indeed, it was first used in 2004 in a speech where Dick Cheney was referring to then presidential candidate John Kerry. It was used even more recently by John McCain earlier this year in a speech where he was talking about Hillary Clinton's health care plan. But no one is reporting that facet of the story, because to do so would require people in the news to actually have to sit down and do some reporting for a change. Instead, the comment is just pasted across headlines all over the country, with such awful reporting that no one knows it's a common phrase, they're just led to believe that it was a sexist remark.

Even then, I'm still really confused as to how it can be sexist. Did Barack Obama even refer to Sarah Palin at all in the speech he was giving? Had he said her name even once while he was talking? No. But once again, you won't find that on CNN, MSNBC or FOX (if you choose to watch that crap). Last time I checked, his whole speech had been about John McCain, and how his proposed policies are the same as President Bush's. No where did the name Sarah Palin come up. And, journalists, if you still really really want to call Obama sexist because of it, at least be fair and call out McCain too; after all, he did say it about Hillary...and he said it first.

Remember that time when journalists were supposed to report on the issues and tell you how your life would be different if so and so got elected? I sure do, because that time is now. Remember that time when they actually did such a thing? No? I didn't think so.