but in the end i was left wondering if john stewart actually had anything to say. he wanted them to stop, but he would never say what it is he wanted instead, except the nebulous "honest debate".
got to admire the guts though, to come on someone's show and call them "hacks".
here's what i think:
in order to have an informed electorate, the ideal response to a political debate would be a lot of deep soul searching, as people mulled over the points raised by both candidates.
in order for the parties to exert maximum mind control over the electorate, the ideal response to a debate would be to have people so emotionally charged up about some issue that they can't even think, they just go home and vote red or blue.
the media should be helping the elecorate have the types of debates it needs, instead of helping the machine have the type of debates it needs.
i actually believe both republicans and democrats would love to move towards the more useful model, but it is like trying to get the US and Russia to throw away their nuclear weapons back during the cold war. they know that the ways things are is bad, very bad, but they are paralyzed by the fear that if they play fair, the other guy will take advantage.
i remember hearing some sr. bush official interviewed on the radio, claiming that they tried a "no spin" approach with the press and the next day it was all over the washington post, spun the other way, with their quotes being used to support the anti-bush spin.
and so i am looking for a way out, and am more than a little dissapointed in john stewart, and in myself, for seeing the problem and being unable to imagine a good solution.
1 comment:
i watched it.
it was good for a while.
but in the end i was left wondering if john stewart actually had anything to say. he wanted them to stop, but he would never say what it is he wanted instead, except the nebulous "honest debate".
got to admire the guts though, to come on someone's show and call them "hacks".
here's what i think:
in order to have an informed electorate, the ideal response to a political debate would be a lot of deep soul searching, as people mulled over the points raised by both candidates.
in order for the parties to exert maximum mind control over the electorate, the ideal response to a debate would be to have people so emotionally charged up about some issue that they can't even think, they just go home and vote red or blue.
the media should be helping the elecorate have the types of debates it needs, instead of helping the machine have the type of debates it needs.
i actually believe both republicans and democrats would love to move towards the more useful model, but it is like trying to get the US and Russia to throw away their nuclear weapons back during the cold war. they know that the ways things are is bad, very bad, but they are paralyzed by the fear that if they play fair, the other guy will take advantage.
i remember hearing some sr. bush official interviewed on the radio, claiming that they tried a "no spin" approach with the press and the next day it was all over the washington post, spun the other way, with their quotes being used to support the anti-bush spin.
and so i am looking for a way out, and am more than a little dissapointed in john stewart, and in myself, for seeing the problem and being unable to imagine a good solution.
Post a Comment