One of my biggest complaints about TV news political coverage is becoming, thankfully, less valid. I have long complained about a campaign of short TV news sound bytes. It’s like voting for a candidate because of what you read on a bumper sticker.
That is changing. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, appeaing on Bill Moyers Journal, says the candidates have extended formats to rely on now. A lot of them are on the cable, but there are a few places on the mainstream commercial stations that allow more details, programs like “The View” on ABC, and the morning shows like “Today,” “Good Morning America,” and “The Early Show,” and the Sunday morning talk shows like “meet the Press,” This Week,” “Face the Nation,” and “Fox News Sunday.” And there is the Internet with a lot of political sites and YouTube. She said that the viewers who are really interested in politics, those who will vote, are not watching all of the 30-minute network newscast. They leave when the political segment is over.
She told Moyers, “And so, if you simply look at the appearances of these candidates what you realize is, first, they’ve had a chance in an extended format, to articulate their basic message to an audience they would like to reach to vote. It’s a voting audience. It’s is not a high news consuming audience. But you realize, as well, that this is very healthy for democracy. Because this is a format that gives them the extra time to make the case. It moves out of some of sound-byte journalism.”
She says this is really healthy for a democracy. I agree.
Things are looking up.
I said I was going to take a break from politics for a while. But, some major changes in the political scene have shortened that “while.”
Many Americans, I believe, are opting to become engaged in the political process again. They are registering to vote in droves. The turnout for the primaries is impressive. Not only that, they are being joined by a group has been sitting out the game for a long time, young people. Barack Obama is drawing huge support from the young.
One of the main reasons that things are getting worse economically is that corporate leaders are calling the shots. War makes a lot of money for defense industries and even they appear so married to profits at any costs that they’re outsourcing jobs. China is now making American smart bombs. With lower paid workers, they can make them cheaper.
Corporate leaders are calling the shots in Washington because they own Washington. They are paying billions to buy it, but they are getting very good returns for their investments.
Now that ownership is in jeopardy, thanks to the Internet. Candidates are now raising tons of money from small contributors. Barack Obama is out-raising not only Hillary Clinton, but also John McCain and he is doing it without corporate bucks. His Internet fund raising campaign is concentrating on contributions from small donors, mainly people who contribute less than $200.
He’s not the only one doing this now. Hillary Clinton and John McCain – both of whom received tons of corporate donations – are now looking toward the Internet for small contributors. (Perhaps Senator Clinton will stop her effort soon because the likelihood of her winning the Democratic nomination is now remote.)
I would like to see this become the major source of fund raising. If we have to have a government controlled by money, can you think of a more democratic way than for millions of small donors to beat out the few mega-donors? Maybe we’ll begin to see a Washington that is concerned with the welfare of the average American, not just the corporate elite.
There are other major shifts going on. We are talking real change. Stay tuned.
Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, really brought home to me what has happened to manufacturing in America. In Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world issue, he summed up a huge change in the American economy in the last 25 years. He said, “There has been a power shift from Main Street to Wall Street – from making things to making deals.”
A young friend of mine - he works for a pharmaceutical company - defended that change by saying American corporations had to ship jobs overseas because manufacturing costs in the United States are too high. He didn’t say anything about the 75-million-dollar annual pay checks for C.E.O.’s who are making up to 400 times what their line workers make.
My reply was, “But, look at what shipping those jobs overseas is causing.”
75 percent of the American economy is generated by consumer spending. Everything has gone up, with oil leading the way, but the proportionate salaries of the American line worker. If the consumer doesn’t make enough money to buy things, then our economy is in big trouble. There was a time when line workers made good money, especially those with who had strong unions. That meant they had money to buy nice homes, cars and send their kids to college.
That great American capitalist Henry Ford understood the need for the people who built his cars to be able to buy them and in 1914 doubled the pay of his workers to $5 a day. In 1914 that was impressive pay for an average guy. It turned out he knew what he was doing. He became very rich.
Manufacturing giants like legendary Henry Ford have taken a back seat to the money changers. Reich says, in his Time mini-article, “Once, captains of American industry had great economic influence in Washington. Now, it’s the investment banker.”
That’s one big reason for the economic pickle we are in.
As we can see from all of the fuss over Barack Obama’s bitter small town folks comment, the gun issue is still a really big one.
That makes me think about where I stand on the issue. Let’s Talk about it.
For podcast, click:
I have done most of my writing for broadcast news. That means short, declarative, conversational sentences. The late Elmo Ellis, who was program manager when I was at WSB Radio in Atlanta, would tell me, “Just write it the same way you would tell something to your neighbor over the backyard fence.”
The big idea was to keep things simple. That’s what my latest podcast is about.
Being a political animal, I never thought I would get tired of a presidential campaign, but I am. I’m going to take a break from it and deal with other subjects on this blog for a while. Maybe we’ll get into philosophy – not the formal stuff like Kant, Socrates, Plato, Santayana, Nietzche, Dewey – but, mine and yours. However, I won’t rule out a reference or two about the great philosophers, especially if anyone wants to raise the subject.
Also, I love history so I’ll probably chat about that.
Movies? Yep.
Books? Yep.
Education, family, psychology, geology, and, well…anything? I guess “anything” just about sizes it up.
Let’s start this new direction with my latest podcast. Be sure to keep listening after I finish talking because there is some neat original music at the end, composed and performed on synthesizer by my stepson Richard Champion.
Click on:
;As expected, Jimmy Carter has been severely criticized for talking with “the enemy” by Israeli officials. However, what has not talking with Hamas leaders accomplished? The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians remains the major core source of problems in the Middle East.
The United States government, even during the years when Republican Ronald Reagan was president, never stopped “talking with the enemy,” carrying on many discussions with leaders of the former Soviet Union. Now, there is no Soviet Union, but there is still life on earth because a nuclear war was averted, though at one time we came close during the Cuban missile crisis.
Former President Jimmy Carter is trying to break the deadlock, open up lines of communication and help bring about peace in the Middle East. He continues to demonstrate great courage as he does this because he knows he will be savagely attacked by those who apparently aren’t interested in a fair settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
President Carter has brought back a message from the leaders of Hamas that they are willing to hold a referendum on creating a Palestinian state and are willing to accept Israel as a neighbor if Israel will give back the territory it took in the 1967 war. But, it probably doesn’t matter what they said, because Israel probably will refuse to consider any information that came out of the talks Carter conducted because they disapproved that they were held at all.
The Bush administration could get some movement going toward peace if it supported instead of fighting Carter. Israel needs that three billion dollars and other support .that America gives it every year.
You can see a BBC report on the Carter peace mission at this link.
More and more people are complaining that the two-party system in the United States is not working very well. There are two independent members of Congress, both in the Senate – Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont – and they caucus with Democrats. Other than that, everyone is either a Democrat or a Republican.
What is the democratic alternative to the two-party system? A lot of countries in the world, including France and Germany, have proportional representation. That means there are multi-parties that represent different groups and/or ideologies determined by percentages of the vote. This allows minority groups to have representation.
Those against it say it is too cumbersome and causes a lot of deadlock. However, the U.S. Congress, which is elected by districts and states, not by percentages of the votes, also deadlocks.
It would possible for third and more parties to exist in the United States, but the rules in effect, make it extremely hard for it to happen. The two parties in power make those rules, and they want the two-party system to remain as it is.
Wikipedia has a good explanation of proportional representation. You can read it by clicking on this link.
Would it be a good idea for the United States to have proportional representation? I’m not sure. But, maybe it would be worth a try. Just look at the mess we are in right now with the two-party system.
Hillary Clinton is playing the political game the way the Republican Swift-boaters will play it in spades once the general election campaign is started. What is so encouraging about this is – at least, according to the polls – it’s not working. We’ll learn soon how well it is working when the Pennsylvania primary is held. Senator Obama’s refusal to stoop that level is working. However, he’s not so naive as to not know that he has to respond. He does by pointing out - as he did in last night’s debate - when such tactics are used and that the American people are smarter than the political dirty-pool gang thinks they are. I hope he is right.
He, however, goes a bit further and directly answers attacks, as he did in Terra Haute when he responded to Clinton and McCain’s charges that he is elitist and condescending.
