"real" america

A few days ago, Sarah Palin was on the campaign trail, giving her usual stump speech about how Obama likes to talk to people who have done things wrong in their past and served their time. During the course of her speech, she said that she liked being in small towns, where people worked in factories, fought for their country and grew small businesses. Now that's perfectly fine, I have absolutely nothing against small towns, small towns are great. I grew up in what was a small town, but while I was growing up, transformed into sub-urban sprawl.

Later on in the speech though, is when the real fun started. Later on is when Palin said that she liked being in small town because they are what she calls "Real America". As if the rest of America other than these "small towns" is the fake America. As if it doesn't really exist or is a part of an entirely different country. Or if like John Stewart said last night, "If you're from a big city and have gone to war in the War on Terror and have died, I guess it doesn't count."

What is it with the notion that if you live in a city or in suburbia, you're not really an American. Never mind that the top-ten most populous cities in the country combine to account for more than 33 million people. Never mind that just because some people who live in cities have ideas that are different than people who live in places that aren't cities, they are still American citizens and have fought and died for their country.

Just because large cities tend to vote Democrat doesn't mean that they aren't "real" Americans. Sarah Palin and the rest of the Republican campaign need to realize that every citizen of this country is a "real" American, and their disagreement with other peoples ideas is the most American thing of all.

The Daily Show/Apology

This first part is mostly for my professor: Professor Cohen, i'm sorry I haven't been blogging very much, I just got done with writing two ten-page papers, and my life has kind of been consumed by them. They're done now, so I'm back to blogging.

I'm constantly amazed at how the best reporting on national events, the best let's-get-to-the-bottom-of-this reporting comes out of Comedy Central. Why is it that John Stewart, on a comedy show, has the ability to show the contradictions and hypocrisy that plague politics on a consistent basis. Why can't anyone else do this?

It's because as a comedy show, Stewart doesn't have to worry about being too politically correct, or worry about asking people questions that are too hard so they won't have to come back. Because his biting social commentary come in the guise of comedy, he can do essentially whatever he wants, have whoever he wants as a guest, and ask whatever he chooses. He also just flat-out has more courage than most people in the news industry because he knows that no matter what he does, Comedy Central won't come down on him and people will continue to watch his show.

In short, he can do what he does because he doesn't have to deal with corporate pressure, and he has a dedicated fan base. If only people who did "real news" had the freedom he enjoys, then we might actually really be able to see some worthwhile reporting.

I love the fact-check

Let's talk about how much I am in love with the Annenberg Political Fact Check. No where else can I get such a comprehensive debunking of so many different myths and falsehoods on the campaign trail. The site hits both political parties equally, caring not for party affiliation, but the truthfulness of what is being said.

The site hammerd Obama on his distortion of McCain's social security plan, calling his ad an attempt to scare senior citizens. It calls out McCain-Palin on an ad that distorts Obama's remarks on Afghanistan and his support for troop-funding bills. I have also seen it cited on Yahoo! News as their source for fact-checking the presidential and vice-presidential debates.

If only major news outlets could take such action and actually call out candidates when they lie about opponents. The role of the news isto referee the political discourse and inform people about issues that affect them. But then, if they actually did their job, no one would want to be interviewed now would they?

Cambell Brown

I saw something the other day on CNN that gave me great hope that the media may have reached a turning point in this election. while anchoring CNN's Election Center, Brown issued a plea on behalf of the American people, calling for both campaigns to stop slinging mud about associations either candidate had multiple decades ago, and focus on the economy. I say good job Cambell Brown.

Instead of covering the horse race of presidential elections, networks have shifted their focus to covering the most pressing issue on the American table, the economy. While some major networks have still covered slime like the Keating Five or Obama's association with Bill Ayers, they are more focused on the country's economic woes.

While some on-air networks like CNN have mostly stopped focusing exclusively on low-brow character attacks, such stories still show up on their websites. On ABCnews.com's political section, the majority of major headlines focus on campaign attacks, and how much one candidate has been spending over the other. Out of twenty stories, only four stories speak on the economy and the other 16 focus on who out-spent who, who "won" the debate and who is attacking who.

Why must major news outlets that are responsible for giving the American people relevant information on things that affect their lives be so focused on things that won't change how their health care works or whether they can send their kid to college.

It's a shame, and it needs to stop.