A blog about self-discovery, politics, and general awesomeness.
I watched this debate and I have to say, I don't quite understand the "personal attacks" claim. Is it because I'm not a woman? Maybe, but I don't think so.What struck me about the text of the link is that the claim that it was "two hours of Senator Clinton being bombarded with personal attacks, not only by her opponents but also by the moderator Tim Russert", but I didn't see a single example. Not one. Which question, specifically, was a personal attack?The more I read this stuff, the more I see it as the left's way of dealing with the perception (whether real or not) that the media is liberal. It seems almost calculated. See, if you say the same thing loud enough and long enough without equally loud disagreement, people start to accept it as fact. So, to counter the "liberal media" claim, it seems like the left is providing that loud disagreement, regardless of whether not its true. So people will think "Hey, the left says this guy's a republican and the right says he's a dem. Therefore, he must be in the middle." Maybe it'll work, I don't know, but I think its a waste of time and turns people away from public policy instead of engaging in it.As for Matthews, I'm sorry, but I watch this guy's show from time to time and the claim that he "hates women" is absurd. Is it silly that he talks about how her voice becomes shrill as she begins to talk loud? Or that he wonders why she's clapping all time? That depends on your perspective. See, this is politics -- this stuff matters to politicians. They pay consultants big bucks to analyze them and tell them these things so that they can sell themselves. Matthews is a political junkie; politics is fascinating to him. To him (and other political junkies), it's not silly but rather part of the "game" that is politics. Me... I think its silly. But that's because I don't have the same fascination with this stuff. But, talking about it doesn't mean that Matthews "hates women".
Thanks for the comment.I suppose that article didn't really make my point that I would have liked. It isn't that Mathews 'hates women', it's that he (and the media in general) pick up these little things that aren't relevant on how he or she may run the country and then pound on them over and over, rather than actually looking at the issues. As far as your point regarding over-reaction by the left to the 'liberal bias' in the media, when was the last time you saw a bunch of headlines about the $400 haircut on a republican canidate? Or the last time a male canidate going after white males was questioned the way HRC going after the woman vote is?You are absolutely right it is all about politics, so why not talk about the issues instead of acting like a bunch of high schoolers gossiping? There are already TV shows for that, hell an entire channel dedicated to it, so why do it on the news?I'll go one bit further. As soon as TV anchors started being the feature (commericals about the anchors, plastered on billboards, etc) and they became more TV star than journalist, the quality of TV news went to shit. There is too much ego involved in the anchors themselves now and it is just plain pathetic.
> it's that he (and the media in > general) pick up these little things > that aren't relevant on how he or she > may run the country and then pound on > them over and over, rather than > actually looking at the issues.He does both. It all depends on when you tune in. If it's a slow news day then, yes, he'll talk more about politics than issues but he has and does actually ask really good questions from time to time.> As far as your point regarding > over-reaction by the left to the > 'liberal bias' in the media, when was > the last time you saw a bunch of > headlines about the $400 haircut on a > republican canidate? Or the last time > a male canidate going after white > males was questioned the way HRC going > after the woman vote is?I haven't seen Matthews talk about the $400 haircut thing so I can't comment on that directly, but as far as talking about similar "nonsense" (e.g. politically interesting but not directly related to issues) I'll offer up a few things: Giuliani's marriages, Romney's religion, Huckabee's name.Again, is it about the issues? No. Is it interesting? Not to me, but it is to the folks who enjoy the "game" of politics. Matthews is fair (I think) in that he'll attack bullshit arguments on the air, with the people making them, regardless of which party the person happens to belong to. He isn't perfect by any stretch, but he's one of the better one's on the air right now. And Russert is another. Claiming that these guys "hate women" based on what I've seen is absurd.
The 'hate women' bit might go a bit too far, but there is ample evidence that they do not get the same sort of coverage that men do. Perhaps picking specifically on Mathews and Russert isn't serving my overall point as well as it could.In any case, when Mathews gets his head out of his ass I agree he can be a very tough interview. He did well with Rudy recently and I wish that side of him would come out more often with everyone.> Again, is it about > the issues? No. Is > it interesting? Not to > me, but it is to the > folks who enjoy the > "game" of politics.Talking about BS stuff about the candidates is not the 'game' of politics, that is the game of a gossiping media. The 'game' of politics is much more interesting if you actually get into real coverage of the strategy and tactics employeed. While the media is a pawn in the real game, they allow themselves to be and need to grow up.
Post a Comment