Jesus Christ, fire MoDo, and hire Elizabeth Edwards to write thoughtful commentary. If I see one more MoDo article about the size of Obama's ears, "preacher gate", or most of the rest of her bullshit, I'm going to go ballistic.
Two Commentators, same day, same newspaper.
Elizabeth Edwards implores the political press to start doing its job:
Amen, Sister. Spot on. Our media has sunk to the bottom of the barrel. A place where preachergate, and horse race crap trumps the iraq war or the rape of the american working class.
And yet on the very same page, in almost defiant celebration of useless, self-indulgent process commentary, Maureen Dowd speculates about how much Obama's suits cost and proceeds to analyze...his bowling score:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27edwards.html
mydd.com
Two Commentators, same day, same newspaper.
Elizabeth Edwards implores the political press to start doing its job:
FOR the last month, news media attention was focused on Pennsylvania and its Democratic primary. Given the gargantuan effort, what did we learn?
Well, the rancor of the campaign was covered. The amount of money spent was covered. But in Pennsylvania, as in the rest of the country this political season, the information about the candidates’ priorities, policies and principles — information that voters will need to choose the next president — too often did not make the cut. After having spent more than a year on the campaign trail with my husband, John Edwards, I’m not surprised.FOR the last month, news media attention was focused on Pennsylvania and its Democratic primary. Given the gargantuan effort, what did we learn?
Well, the rancor of the campaign was covered. The amount of money spent was covered. But in Pennsylvania, as in the rest of the country this political season, the information about the candidates’ priorities, policies and principles — information that voters will need to choose the next president — too often did not make the cut. After having spent more than a year on the campaign trail with my husband, John Edwards, I’m not surprised.The vigorous press that was deemed an essential part of democracy at our country’s inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional articles. I am not suggesting that every journalist for a mainstream media outlet is neglecting his or her duties to the public. And I know that serious newspapers and magazines run analytical articles, and public television broadcasts longer, more probing segments.
But I am saying that every analysis that is shortened, every corner that is cut, moves us further away from the truth until what is left is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call strobe-light journalism, in which the outlines are accurate enough but we cannot really see the whole picture.
The problem today unfortunately is that voters who take their responsibility to be informed seriously enough to search out information about the candidates are finding it harder and harder to do so, particularly if they do not have access to the Internet.
Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe Biden's health care plan? Anything at all? But let me guess, you know Barack Obama's bowling score. We are choosing a president, the next leader of the free world. We are not buying soap, and we are not choosing a court clerk with primarily administrative duties.
If voters want a vibrant, vigorous press, apparently we will have to demand it. Not by screaming out our windows as in the movie "Network" but by talking calmly, repeatedly, constantly in the ears of those in whom we have entrusted this enormous responsibility. Do your job, so we can -- as voters -- do ours.
Amen, Sister. Spot on. Our media has sunk to the bottom of the barrel. A place where preachergate, and horse race crap trumps the iraq war or the rape of the american working class.
And yet on the very same page, in almost defiant celebration of useless, self-indulgent process commentary, Maureen Dowd speculates about how much Obama's suits cost and proceeds to analyze...his bowling score:
Maybe I’ve been reading too many stories about the fad of teenage vampire chick lit, worlds filled with parasitic aliens and demi-human creatures, but there’s something eerie going on in this race.
Hillary grows more and more glowy as Obama grows more and more wan. It used to be that he was incandescent and she was merely inveterate. Now she’s bristling with life force, and he looks like he wants to run away somewhere for three months by himself and smoke.
At Joe's Junction gas station in Indianapolis, Obama did his best to shoo away the pesky elitist label. Accused by an Indianapolis reporter of looking like a GQ cover, he said he has only four pairs of shoes and buys "five of the same suit and then I patch them up and wear them repeatedly." But his campaign refused to reveal the brand, presumably because it's not J. C. Penney.
He dutifully enthused about carbs, assuring reporters that when he had dinner as a child with his Kansas grandparents, the food “would have been very familiar to anybody here in Indiana. A lot of pot roast, potatoes and Jell-O molds.”
But then he resumed wry whingeing about his 37 bowling score, explaining that he finished only seven frames, including two that “were bowled by a 10-year-old” and another by a 3-year-old
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27edwards.html
mydd.com