For example, John F. Kennedy was interviewed on 3 January 1960 for the "Meet The Press" show once he announced he was running for President on the Democratic ticket. The interviewers are serious, sober, and ask numerous substantive questions. Kennedy is articulate, has a grasp of history, bases his thinking on sound reasons, he discusses and supports a foundation of thought on constitutional issues, and finally, he does not mince words on even the tough questions posed to him. The questions are directed at the candidate and they get out of the way. The overwhelming numbers of words come from Kennedy.
On the other hand, in a recent disagreement Obama and McCain spout off sound bites vapidly. Yet, the commentators, who dominate the issue, blather on blissfully about how the candidates have finally reached a point of policy and they seem thrilled that the disagreement is dealing with one issue, at least, seriously. Its just pathetic. They are gleefully mugging for the camera and note how exciting and interesting the debate is. They spew out an abundance of words, and no one seems to note that both Obama and McCain seem ignorant of the issue they are discussing. The commentators only seek to heighten the conflict.
Isn't it just by coincidence that the Meet the Press clip are all male interviewers, although it should be noted that the show included females as well, and the contemporary clip is all women?
And now a word from our sponsor.
In short, this is the focus, not any sort of issue or choice that a voter could consider. Its teletainment.
Posts
