George--Abdicate abdicate!
One of the things lost in all the criticisms of George and Charlie last night (which i think were richly deserved) was an understanding of what the media ought to be up to. George defends his role saying "Overall, the questions were tough, fair, relevant, and appropriate." Now, let's parse that for a minute. I'll conceded that most of the questions were tough questions. But were they fair, or relevant or appropriate?
It used to be that one of the jobs of the media was to investigate claims made about candidates for accuracy, and then, if they were found to have some bearing, raise the issue in the pages of their newspaper, or on the airwaves. Before a question was asked, it was vetted for whether it was relevant or whether it was a smear with no basis in fact. That's the obvious job of serious news organizations, and it's what differentiates one that desires to hold on to a reputation, and one that doesn't.
What we find more and more, and never more obviously than in last nights debate, is that facts no longer have to undergird questions. The only thing required to vet a "relevant" question is whether "other people are talking about it" and whether this so-called "issue,"be it a loose-lipped pastor, a bomb throwing radical, or a fib about Tuzla, can hurt the candidate if said enough times. If the media were functioning as it should, Obama would not have had to respond ad nauseum to questions about Rev. Wright or William Ayers. Both associations would have been investigated, the context of these associations would have been brought out and discussed in the light of day--namely that Wright's works and deeds present no evidence that he is, in fact, a racist, or should viewed as such, only that he is a firebrand who said some racist things on a few occasions, and more imporantly that Obama and Ayers have no relevant relationship. They live in the same neighborhood. Ayers is reformed, he hasn't planted bombs for 40 years, and since has done many good works in Chicago and they happened to be on the same board. It's the media's job to investigate this first, and then ask the question.
What we have now are idealogues who don't care about the facts, the Hannitys of the world, putting accusations out in the world and real news organizations pick up these "issues" and regurgitate them without any work on their part to expose the accusation as off the mark, or right on. The shameful laziness on display last night was the result of these practices.
It used to be that one of the jobs of the media was to investigate claims made about candidates for accuracy, and then, if they were found to have some bearing, raise the issue in the pages of their newspaper, or on the airwaves. Before a question was asked, it was vetted for whether it was relevant or whether it was a smear with no basis in fact. That's the obvious job of serious news organizations, and it's what differentiates one that desires to hold on to a reputation, and one that doesn't.
What we find more and more, and never more obviously than in last nights debate, is that facts no longer have to undergird questions. The only thing required to vet a "relevant" question is whether "other people are talking about it" and whether this so-called "issue,"be it a loose-lipped pastor, a bomb throwing radical, or a fib about Tuzla, can hurt the candidate if said enough times. If the media were functioning as it should, Obama would not have had to respond ad nauseum to questions about Rev. Wright or William Ayers. Both associations would have been investigated, the context of these associations would have been brought out and discussed in the light of day--namely that Wright's works and deeds present no evidence that he is, in fact, a racist, or should viewed as such, only that he is a firebrand who said some racist things on a few occasions, and more imporantly that Obama and Ayers have no relevant relationship. They live in the same neighborhood. Ayers is reformed, he hasn't planted bombs for 40 years, and since has done many good works in Chicago and they happened to be on the same board. It's the media's job to investigate this first, and then ask the question.
What we have now are idealogues who don't care about the facts, the Hannitys of the world, putting accusations out in the world and real news organizations pick up these "issues" and regurgitate them without any work on their part to expose the accusation as off the mark, or right on. The shameful laziness on display last night was the result of these practices.
