Please, Watch The Debates

Friday, December 09, 2011

Transcript

You can be forgiven for watching the republican presidential debates this primary season and wondering what it is all for. Canned answers.  False camaraderie.  But debates are much, much more informative than television advertising, says professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Brooke speaks with Jamieson who says the debates have informed voters and allowed candidates with little money to rise in the polls. Jamieson is the director of Factcheck.org and the new Flackcheck.org.

Comments [8]

@Katherine Jackson:

"But it's mainly money. NOT democracy."

True. What the Right needs is a shining example of money not being used as a megaphone to promote an agenda that its promulgator doesn't even abide by himself, like George Soros and progressive taxes... oh, wait. Bad example.

Ok, Jeff Immelt and reducing corporate influence in politics... no, wait... Corporate tax reform... no, that's not it either...

Oh, I know! Like John Kerry marrying Teresa Heinz so her deep pockets could bankroll his political aspirations... no, not that...

"[...] money, celebrity status"

Like Oprah throwing her support behind Obama in 2008?

"Only a small percentage of voters would prefer any of these candidates even anyone of quality appeared with a fighting chance."

You've seen the numerous polls that show "generic GOP candidate beats Obama" by at least 10% points, right?

Where are you getting your facts?

"And can you actually imagine the most powerful country in the world, whose actions have an enormous impact on billions of people, being "led" by Newt Gingrich???"

You mean "led again", right? Gingrich managed to get President Clinton to completely adopt the Contract with America and get it passed within 2 years of his taking office...

"Why doesn't On the Media cover the true relation of democracy to presidential politics in this day & age???"

Why would they need to become propagandists when a lot of people voluntarily chose to remain blissfully oblivious of the facts... And who's 'truth'? Yours?

Inform yourself and learn to examine your own political party with a bit of healthy skepticism... your blind loyalty to it does them a disservice.

Dec. 12 2011 03:03 AM

@Drew:

"It just strikes me that "wealthy" is more accurate, so I was wondering if the media used the word "rich" intentionally."

Well, into Spanish, "rich" would translate to "rico", but "rico" also translates back from Spanish as "tasty" or "delicious".

The media is clearly trying to suggest to us that we should eat the rich (they're delicious!)...

Dec. 12 2011 02:47 AM
Katherine Jackson from LES

As one who is totally embarrassed by the crop of GOP candidates (I really can't imagine what much of the rest of the world thinks of the whole lot of them) I wish someone would talk about why such a clownish crowd are taken so seriously by the media. The idea that watching these absurd debates is enhancing democracy is the height of ludicrousness. In fact, this field of candidates has precious little to do with democracy -- money, celebrity status (attained by a combination of money and attention-grabbing statements, and gaffes and whatnot) are what has pushed these jokers to the fore. Especially as TV prefers a "good" show to anything resembling serious political discourse. But it's mainly money. NOT democracy. Only a small percentage of voters would prefer any of these candidates even anyone of quality appeared with a fighting chance. If any of them wins the general election, the media will have to accept its significant role in this. And can you actually imagine the most powerful country in the world, whose actions have an enormous impact on billions of people, being "led" by Newt Gingrich??? Why doesn't On the Media cover the true relation of democracy to presidential politics in this day & age???

Dec. 11 2011 03:34 PM
Drew from Troy, MI

I have a question. Why does the media use the word "rich," as opposed to "wealthy?" is "rich" a buzz word as in the dems want to tax and spend and class warfare? It just strikes me that "wealthy" is more accurate, so I was wondering if the media used the word "rich" intentionally.

Dec. 11 2011 01:14 PM
listener

"Alot of good journalism wrapped around this political process" seems to ignore that the President makes full out campaign speeches and tours demagoguing his opposition on the tax payer's dime while fundraising for a billion dollar campaign.
Is it appropriate to use public expenses and the trappings of the office like calling a special joint session of Congress to give an apparent campaign speech on jobs, last summer's million dollar bus tour and his constant fundraising to name just a few.
Why is there still consternation over Citizens United and private corporations spending their own funds but little concern for public money aiding the Obama campaign while the national debt hits 15 trillion thanks to his policies. "Glorious days for democracy" indeed.

Dec. 11 2011 09:45 AM

"You can be forgiven for watching the republican presidential debates this primary season and wondering what it is all for. Canned answers. False camaraderie."

As opposed to the Presidential speeches, which are thinly veiled campaign stumps with 'canned answers' and 'false promises' that Mr. Obama has no intention of fulfilling, much like 4 years ago when he promised to "bring Iran to the negotiating table" and "close Gitmo".

"That was a good interview by Bret Baier. You also saw a very strong interview by Bill O'Reilly of Governor Perry."

Wow. OTM managed to say something good (and even reasonably objective!) about Fox News without choking back bile? Who thought this day would ever come...

Dec. 10 2011 05:44 PM

Thanks for the heads up. Fixed.

Dec. 10 2011 11:32 AM
Alan B. Cohen

Please note: The esteemed professor's name is "Kathleen" Hall Jamieson, not "Katherine".

A. B. Cohen

Dec. 10 2011 08:08 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.