CNN Fanning the Flames of Race during a Holiday - does it really sell nowadays?

The media is still drumming the beat about race, gleefully, on a day when race should be ignored. Dr. Martin Luther King was about Peace, so why the media insists on innervating the issue about the "civil wars" among pro- or anti- Clinton camps of blacks is gratuitous and another example of how the media always gets in the way of politics.



I know we need them. The media. But we don't need them playing ping pong with the facts and putting their spin on it. CNN was doing good for a while there, during its Election Bowl yesterday where, for once, they shut up and let us watch the news ourselves, allowing us to draw our own conclusions about what we witnessed -- it was the best viewing I've ever seen on the show. No re-interpretations of what was said, nobody's voice was narrating the subjects performance simultaneously preventing us from hearing the subject's speech. CNN just put the microphones on and did the right thing: They Shut Up.

But of course, they can't go off air too long, as we might turn to C-Span, so they did their schtick for their advertisers and returned on air, and started talking about how everything is about race. Well, in a country of former slaves, a majority of whom thought they'd never see a black man reach Senator Barack Obama's stature, it's a foregone conclusion that it's an emotional vote for the black masses. That's like denying that Scots weren't proud when Sean Connery finally became knighted or whatever it was he was bestowed. We live in clusters in this society, but the media tries to do the defining of those clusters, which is the problem.

The media defines what is fighting words with their leading questions, and make much ado about nothing, then ask people the self-serving obvious question about "is race now a factor in the election?" Yes, you put it there by drawing attention to it -- idiot! You can't be the boy who cried wolf and expect to be ignored only the second time around! But here's to hoping the issue will go away.

Elections are personal choices, some racial-based, some gender-based, some financial-based -- it depends upon the person. Trying to bring race into the picture during celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King's achievements shows how far we truly haven't come. The press should be ashamed of itself for fanning the flames of dissension through its race-baiting rhetoric. Were they taking polls of Jewish voters when Senator Leiberman was running for Vice-President with Al Gore?

No one is getting hosed today, or beaten, except on MSNBC's Dock Block shows (more on that, when I have the time).

I believe in a free press. But I believe they've changed their job descriptions. They give us their slant on the news then tell us how to think. Well, that's why we need to muzzle them. The news anchor as star was supposed to be on the Mary Tyler Moore show, acting the part. Now life imitates art and they've become real life "characters."

If I had it my way, all the news should be C-Span. Just like we don't miss the Writers Guild writers while on strike (we're doing fine without their banal shows), the press could do well to strike, too, so we can define the issues (by talking amongst ourselves). Let people turn on the TV and watch live news feed. The last thing I want to do is listen to a bunch of touted "black-for-the-week" pundits trotted out to talk about race issues about people to whom they can barely relate -- because they have different ethnic experiences (Soledad O'Brien referred to Senator Obama as a "black guy," exclaiming about Obama's poll rankings or something -- I usually turn the channel when she's on television nowadays, so I don't know if she did worse or better beyond her exclamation).

The media has to dim its star to truly let the sun illuminate. They can't be the subjects of the piece. Nor should they be pontificating. They're journalists. Bring on the experts -- not the same old pony-experts, who make a living at talking on the quick and like James Brown said -- but "Sayin' Nothin!

Sphere: Related Content

The Media is Told to Shut up (not only by me) by the Presidential Candidates.

I guess today was a slow day for the media. Barely any mention was made of the US Embassy car bombing in Lebanon, although some anchor says it was of ominous portent for the U.S. Only three people died, so I guess it wasn't that important. But the rest of the day was talk about Race in the race to President that is all about Race, but no one is in a race to talk about it, when it's embers are blown out of proportion in an attempt to create a fire. It didn't work. The media tried to make a mountain out of Senator Barack Obama's molehill about Senator Clinton's statement about what Lyndon B. Johnson did for civil rights.

Get real, Senator Barack. You're a friggin' lawyer. Nothing happens without legislation, no matter how important those courageous civic leaders walk and march and sing and -- vote. I believe Senator Clinton might have been making that point. So in no way was Senator Clinton discounting the advances of slain martyr Dr. Martin Luther King. You have special protection because of your race, so let's not drum up the "race" card where it's not needed.

But boy, did the media like this one. How many times did the media mention race. They had different angles discussing the subject, practically salivating over the idea that things were gonna get "mean and dirty."

It was a non-starter.

The American public knows when something is racial, and this one was not it. Try though you might to foment a hue and cry the likes of a Rodney King incident or an O.J. Simpson verdict, you were shut up, not by us (as we weren't listening anyway - we know a cheap shot when we see one). The candidates told you to shut up. This was a good day. The media tried, yet again, to inject its high school morals into a serious time of debate about who will run our country, and they want to see a mudslinging match. Well, they did. The media lost and they're still wiping their mud from their faces.

Here's not listening to you, Media.

Sphere: Related Content

Fear of Tears - Why the Media is so VerKlempt about Hillary Clinton's Emotions

Okay. I know this is controversial, but I just can't understand the mania surrounding the prospect of a woman President. The furor with which the media (mostly male) gushed and blushed over Barack Obama, his winning smile, his oratory, I thought they were reliving an unrequited crush from grade school. Leave it to the women in Media to give them a dose of reality.

Hey cavemen: wo-man-are-po-li-ti-cians-too. And they have to be scrutinized 2x as men. As a resurged internal Taliban nation (that's a later blog when I have a week to write), we must ensure that women dress like women (those pantsuits! the horror!), that if they cry, then it's a show of weakness that makes her--guess what--HUMAN? Hillary Clinton is Human. Oh My God, she's not a Pod, or an Alien from outer space. But can she be a politician? If she cries? How weak of her. We're a strong nation who doesn't cry (Not. We Tear up at Commercials!). But we make our enemies cry with our shock and awe.

Think Again and ask yourself: where was the outrage when these politicians sniffled, chocked back teaars, and even sobbed (I am not making fun of any of these youtube images below. I only make the point that there's a double standard here, and in "Taliban nation," we just don't comment about a man's weakness when he shows emotion, but we do highlight it as a flaw when a woman plays in a man's game.



Here's another show of tears by then Senator Dole at President Richard Nixon's funeral:



Senator Clinton warned us that she cried when she had to get up early in the morning.





[Just an aside -- Rachel Maddow spoke for at least 3 minutes and there was no name or affiliation at the bottom of the screen, then Michael Medved speaks, and his flashes. Again, men.... you'll never learn.... you can't use Taliban tactics to keep women down. We're too strong for that even if we do cry.

If you can't take the effect of too many onions, get outta da kitchen -- go work on a big rig somewhere; you're all so manly sitting at your desks (and your attempts at bravery by being with the embedded troops is absolutely dangerous, and you can't learn fighting on the job - Stay home where you're safe). Write your hearts out, you masculine men of media who use pens for javelins to poke fun at strong women who are strong enough to show emotions.

And Tim Russert: your time is over. You're no longer a media darling. I'm glad Clinton pinched your cheeks. She sees you as the cherub that you are -- who can easily be manipulated by your corporate owners. But I'll study you, later.

Sphere: Related Content

It's the End of the World as We Know It....

You decide what to believe.

Sphere: Related Content

Why They Got it Wrong.

Clinton? Not Obama?

Chris Mattews' Harball intro and analysis read like the Superbowl previews:

So what can we expect to see tonight? Let‘s go to the numbers. Let‘s start with the Democrats. The latest Suffolk University poll has Obama leading by 5 points in New Hampshire. He‘s up 9 points in the American Research Group poll, and the Reuters/Zogby poll has him up 13 points. That‘s Obama in the lead. The Real Clear Politics Web site, which averages the numbers together, has Obama at 38 percent, Clinton down at 30 percent, an 8-point spread, Edwards a distant third at 18 percent, Bill Richardson all the way down at 6 percent.

On the Republican side, the Suffolk poll has Mitt Romney leading by 4 points in New Hampshire tonight, but other new polls show John McCain with the lead. He‘s up by 7 points in the American Research Group poll, up by 9 points in the Reuters/Zogby poll. The Real Clear Politics average on the Republican side has John McCain leading by 4 points at 32 percent to Romney‘s expected 28 percent. Huckabee‘s down at 12 percent. Giuliani and Ron Paul are in single digits.

We go first to NBC‘s Lee Cowan, who‘s covering the Barack Obama campaign. You‘re at the headquarters. What can you report, Lee?

LEE COWAN, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, Chris, you know, this campaign had promised all along that it was going to get a big turnout, especially among the young voters, just like they did in Iowa. And we do know that turnout has been so big in some places that they actually ran out of ballots and they had to call the secretary of state to bring in more ballots to some of those places. So it seems as though the turnout is certainly in their favor.

This campaign never particularly looked at the poll numbers of late, though. They say they focused a lot more on the size and the enthusiasm of the crowds that they‘ve drawn over the last couple of days. What we‘ve seen here is crowds that are anywhere between twice to a third bigger than what we saw in the last couple of days leading up to the Iowa caucuses. Almost every place had an overflow room. We‘re talking thousands of people in these rallies, not necessarily hundreds of people. And that‘s what made the campaign feel relatively confident. Again, the senator himself says, Look, we haven‘t won anything yet. He‘s being cautious, but he says they feel pretty good.

MATTHEWS: You know, Lee, it used to be said of Barack Obama—and you can fill us in on this—that he would walk into a room to incredible applause, and then leave the audience a bit lower than he found it or entered it. Now, I mean, I was at one of those events this weekend. I can tell you that I saw, heard and felt the excitement of that room growing and growing and growing throughout his appearance. Is that the sense you get or can report on his appearances the last several days?

COWAN: Yes. I mean, I think it‘s fair to say that a while back, some of the speeches were perhaps a little academic. Perhaps he fell into that professorial mode that was talked about a lot. And you‘re right, he didn‘t sometimes end up on a crescendo.

They sound like they're gushing over a crush or something. But, that's not fair, because nowadays men are allowed to show their feelings (isn't that why they wear hankies in their left breast pockets of their suit jackets?), but Hillary Clinton cannot.

What happened?

Here's the answer: Nothing happened. We weren't listening to you.

America's citizens were talking amongst ourselves. We tuned you out.

I thought the titled click reference to the word journalism might shed some insight into why the media are so off base -- most of the time: because they try to ask questions and answer them at the same time, before they finish the question. They're so quick to state what they think they know, when it is their duty to let us in on the information for us to learn and judge for ourselves. Time and time again, the media give us a pie to eat and tell us how we like it, before we've taken a bite.

Well, without being violent, except in metaphor, they all deserve Boston Creme Pies for a facial -- or maybe they've wiped it off their faces already.

They were not journalists. They were entertainers, talking amongst themselves, telling us what no one can truly predict: The future. Instead of beaming proudly that an American could vote for a black candidate, they should have moved on to actually discuss the differences in the health plans between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And Edwards, for that matter. Instead, the media was frantically finding how many ways or how to count how much they loved the Super star. The uber President. The One and Only. They anointed Obama before everyone else got to vote, thinking that somehow the media represent us, the voters. The media represent themselves, and America reminded them. They don't do their jobs anymore and the definition of their profession has steadily declined.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This jour·nal·ism /ˈdʒɜrnlˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[jur-nl-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1.	the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business.

2.	press1 (def. 31).

3.	a course of study preparing students for careers in reporting, writing, and editing for newspapers and magazines.

4.

writing that reflects superficial thought and research, a popular slant, and hurried composition, conceived of as exemplifying topical newspaper or popular magazine writing as distinguished from scholarly writing: He calls himself a historian, but his books are mere journalism. (My emphasis. Yep. That's about right)

---

Lawyers take Continuing Legal Education Classes. Doctors take Continuing Medical Education courses. Journalists? They just keep getting published and published -- and they still don't learn their lessons. In one of his humbler moments, Chris Matthews sought advice from a real journalist, Tom Brokaw, about how to do it right next time, in effect:

BROKAW: You know what I think we’re going to have to do?

MATTHEWS: Yes sir?

BROKAW: Wait for the voters to make their judgment.

MATTHEWS: Well what do we do then in the days before the ballot? We must stay home, I guess.

BROKAW: No, no we don’t stay home. There are reasons to analyze what they’re saying. We know from how the people voted today, what moved them to vote. You can take a look at that. There are a lot of issues that have not been fully explored during all this.

But we don’t have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed. And trying to stampede in effect the process.

Look, I’m not just picking on us, it’s part of the culture in which we live these days. I think that the people out there are going to begin to make judgments about us if we don’t begin to temper that temptation to constantly try to get ahead of what the voters are deciding, in many cases, as we learned in New Hampshire when they went into the polling booth today or in the last three days. They were making decisions very late.

The above was copied from www.thinkhttp://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/08/live-new-hampshire-primary-updates/

Tom Brokaw, I haven't watched you for decades -- please come back. I'll watch you every day for the rest of my life. Please. Come back.

Sphere: Related Content