Debate? Don't Drink the Koolaid

A quick note on last night's debate in Pennsylvania between Sen.'s Obama and Clinton: What a waste eh? Millions of dollars poured into such events only to see ABC turn it into more of what we see everyday: a spectacle where the media becomes its own glorious subject. There are many things I want to know about both candidates, but none of those have to do with why they wear or not flag lapel pins, etc. What's particularly troubling is that this kind of media spectacle makes the candidates worse, as they themselves respond to this drivel and adjust to that kind of treatment. The debate was not flattering for anybody, but I certainly think it looked more like a hit job on Sen. Obama.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan perhaps said it best:

No questions on the environment, none on terror, none on interrogation, none on torture, none on education, none on spending, none on healthcare, none on Iran ... but four separate questions in the first hour about a lapel-pin, Bitter-gate, Wright-gate and Ayers. I'm all for keeping candidates on their toes. But this was ridiculous. And now we have affirmative action? Again, it's not illegitimate as such - but the only reason it is asked is to try and trip these people up and make Gibson and Stephanopoulos look smart.

Amen, Brother.

Where the questions asked relevant? Not at this point. As Aristotle noted in his Art of Rhetoric, when we are divided on the facts, that is when they don't help us make up our minds, Ethos (read it as credibility or character) wins the day. Thus, yes, questions that help us make sense of the character of the candidates, that facilitate our judgment on credibility, make sense to ask. So called character issues might point to dispositions to action, and values (inclinations anyway). But there is no reason to ask stupid questions that do not so much help us make judgment about character as help feed the media more spectacle for it to consume and regurgitate. ABC News essentially demonstrated that the job of the media is to be Ourobouros-like, consuming itself, its own spectacle. The media's subject is itself.

Comments

[Amadeus]

Hey Nacho,

You know, I was once a loyal viewer of ABC News' Nightline, Nightly News and This Week. ABC has had a slow decline since Koppel leaving Nightline to the tabloid artists in 2005 and the passing of Peter Jennings. It is notable that Koppel took other brilliant people with him as well like Morrie Schwatz. Last night's debate, regardless of which candidate you are supporting was a complete waste of time for them and the voters.

Koppel called it spot-on in an interview in 2005: "There are all kinds of new pressures. Among those new pressures", Koppel said, "is an increasing network news emphasis on entertainment and tabloid fare. But so, too, is the ongoing fragmentation of TV's audience."

Count me along with the fragmented. I will no longer even bother turning on ABC News. Although I like KATU's Rod Hill the weatherman and Deb Knapp for our local ABC Portland affiliate, most of the rest I can barely stand. I could see a very near future that I will not bother even turning on the station. They have really nothing I like to watch anyways. The way I see it, I would much rather watch FOX News Network. At least I know what I am getting there, and the faux news is far more entertaining than the hack wannabes at ABC.

Peace and Joy to you!

~Amadeus

[Justin Whitaker]

I didn't watch it, but heard it was awful and wasn't surprised. Even worse (perhaps), check this out from Chaplain Danny Fisher:

http://chaplaindanny.blogspot.com/2008/04/low-hanging-fruit.html

Mainstream media (a reflection of mainstream America?) is showy and shallow. Sad.

[Justin Whitaker]

I guess I should follow that with the hopeful sentiment that more and more people are abandoning mainstream media. But whether that segment of the population can then turn around and influence the majority - glued to CNN and FOX, is another question.

[Nacho]

Amadeus, Justin, thanks for stopping by and for your thoughts!

Amadeus, I have not watched network news in so long! They are just no good in my estimation. Too much of the cult of the archor-person, of the personalities, and too much formula for my tastes. Then again, for my discipline I spend an inordinate amount of time reading all sorts of news and information sources, and I try to avoid ABC, MSNBC, FOX, etc., online sites as well.

Justin, I'll check Danny's post. Thanks for the link. You know, I'm teaching a totally cool class this semester on new media and new media technology and its implications and consequences for social organization, public discourse, etc. The students have been great, and we've been discussing precisely how new media both challenges traditional media outlets, but also regurgitates much of the same. Did you happen to see the article in the NY Times about the Military hiring bloggers to provide partisan info? : )

So, I also have an optimistic nature re mediation, but tinged with plenty of "we'll see." : )

Thanks again, I hope you are both well,

Nacho