Tell the Media: Judge the Debates on Substance, Not Style

Below is a sample letter I wrote which you can put into your own words.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Please judge the Presidential debates based on the honesty of the candidates' answers.

Don't say Bush zinged an insult, so Bush won.

Don't say Bush seemed folksy, so Bush won.

Judge the debates by who tells the truth.

Judge based on who has a better, more realistic plan for addressing issues.

If some of the viewers are manipulated by a candidate's style, that is their loss, NOT something you should speculate-about-or-reinforce by talking about style.

Use your knowledge of the issues-Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, the budget deficit, the trade deficit-to tell us how well each candidate addressed the issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Please email something like this to a pundit or two on the National Media List at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x816939


For more information, visit my blog at http://moveleft.com

The candidates -- BOTH of them -- agreed to terms for this phoney debate that took all element of intellectual honesty out of it.

afterwards.

Let's encourage them to talk about the issues instead of saying what a folksy man-of-the-people Bush was.

someone like Jeff Greenfield of CNN.

It's not about who's the best, it's about who can screw the other guy best and end up the last man standing. That's how I view the whole campaign. Backstabbing -- OK. Cheating -- OK. Pitting people against each other -- OK. Any means to a win -- OK. Etc.

Of course, I've never actually seen a reality show, just the commercials, so I could be way off.

nt

kick

and send it everyday.

nt

kick

kick

kick

kick

I heard some pundit say that the debate won't mean a thing, it'll be the 2 hours of spin afterwards. The spinners will be out in full force and the soundbites will be flying. The Tweety's and Wolfies will know they have a large audience and will be whoring in full regalia.

Content? Issues? They'll be window dressing, unless Kerry stumbles ala Ford in '76 or Bunnypants comes up with some zinger that gets a reaction. It'll all be surface and "perception" in the final analysis...debates always are.

The hopes is Kerry looks so much more Presidential than Bunnypants (and I tend to think seeing the two side-by-side, even Faux can't edit or camera-angle that out)...and who really looks and sounds "Presidential". I have strong faith that those who watch the debates and are undecided will see through the media filter.

Expecting the cable media to play fair now after all this whoring is asking for the impossible. Pointing out their biases is far more valuable as once one sees how blatant this propaganda effort has been, the madder people get at these channels & pundits.

Eric, you saw how pissed off voters can come out of nowhere when they came out to support Ventura. I see a similar effect starting to develop that could really help Kerry...and a great way to feed that fire is using the very tools the Rove machine is trying to destroy us with...once you shine the light, interesting things happen.

so I didn't witness more closely than you did.

I agree that Chris Matthew will whore for Bush on Thursday, but someone like Jeff Greenfield may be reachable, if we ask Greenfield to cover substance.

CNN, Jeff Greenfield, jeff.greenfield@cnn.com

kick

I e-mailed that whole list. I got a couple of responses, too!

nt

Rarely do we find both together. Clinton is an example of both. Edwards is another.

nt

kick