Media Fixed: Proclaimed "Neutered"

"Intellectually neutered."  A great phrase. No way to interpret that as a compliment.

That is how Will Cain of the Blaze recently described journalists on CNN’s 'Reliable Sources.'

Will also dismissed our news gatherers as "shallow theater critics." 

Evidence of this:  according to polls, most do not know what the 'sequester' is or its effects, but we know that each party blames the other for it. More evidence:  Some may actually have believed it was inevitable.  Still more: We don't know what Marco Rubio said after the SOTU, but we know he was thirsty.  A bit more:  much attention paid to Obama confusing Star Wars and Star Trek.  Mind melds were Vulcan.  All school children should have learned that in first grade.  (Maybe just my kids learned that in first grade.)  Not much attention paid to actual effects of, well, the sequester.

It is so easy to analyze what doesn't matter.  How else could Joan Rivers justify making a living critiquing clothing at the Oscars when her sole expertise comes from 50+ years as a comedienne?

Another question:  why call the budget cut a 'sequester?"  Was our government depending on the "kardashianism" of our media in the hope that the public would hear a three syllable, nine letter word and tune out?  Thanks to Will Cain, among others, for giving us the term "Kardashianism."

Maybe we get what we want. Actually trending recently:  Britney Spear's shopping list.  Trending as I write this: Paul McCartney arrived at his daughter’s show late.  Trying to sleep now will be hopeless.

By the way, is there a need to know the difference between a Kardashian and a Snooki? Is there a difference?  I am sure there is a newly neutered news correspondent covering this important issue.

A delayed appreciation

I should have mentioned this earlier.  I hope it's never too late for a kind word.

A Facebook friend, a long-time successful television news producer, wants to write a book on what is wrong with journalism today.  He wondered two things:  1.  would anybody read it? and 2.  how many volumes would it take?

With cynicism high and hope for quality journalism low, comes word from the New York Times.  At a newspaper that values their journalistic heritage, the paper published an article though they were quite sure it would cost advertising revenue.

The New York Times' David Barboza  broke a story awhile ago about the "vast wealth of the Chinese prime minister's family." The Times published the article for two reasons--it was true and it was newsworthy.  As a result, the Times website was blocked in China causing its advertisers to have no access to the audience it was promised.   

Recently, the New York Times company reported its net income for the third quarter had declined more than 85 percent compared to the same period last year.   Its stock dropped more than 22 percent.  Losing ad revenue in China, or anyplace else, right now is maybe not a good business decision.  The Times concluded that a Chinese politician helping his family financially at the government's expense is a good story.  So they ran it.

There is a lot wrong with journalism today.  The problems are technological, sociological, economic and perhaps due to an ever shortening attention span on the part of its audience.  What the New York Times reminded us is that the problems are not part of a natural evolution.  They are a choice.  The New York Times chose to do quality, responsible journalism, no matter what the costs.  Because the story was true and newsworthy.  They made a choice.

Debating the debates

Is there any debate on the silliness of the debates?

The usual format, the moderator asks a question.  The moderator makes the question very similar to the question on the same topic asked in every previous debate. But this time, add a twist to the question to allow each candidate to offer his or her most inflammatory response.  Each candidate has 60 seconds to answer. 

If there is an attack on another candidate, that other debater has thirty seconds to respond.  60 second answers.  30 second responses. I can’t explain to my daughter why she has a ten p.m. curfew in 60 seconds.   I can’t place my order at Ruby Tuesdays in 30 seconds.    And with those time limitations, we are actually supposed to learn about the candidates and make decisions?  The debate format allows errors, cheap applause lines and inflammatory comments. This format, after years of refining the timing, avoids any shred of substantive content. 

The very conservative Newt Gingrich agrees with writers of the not so conservative show, West Wing.  Scrap this format and allow the candidates to debate without time limits, without moderators.  The debater would just debate.  If they had nothing to say past bullet points, we would know.  If their plans only had superlatives but no actual plan, we would know.  If a candidate actually had a bright idea, we would know.  Bring back the Lincoln Douglas debate format. 

Or maybe find new moderators.  I learned very little watching the debates in Iowa and New Hampshire.  They don'’t like “Obama-care.”  Why?  It’s socialized medicine, said Michele Bachmann.  Oh.  How is it like socialized medicine?  Never got to that. 
Did the candidates hate all aspects of “Obama-care”? Is it all bad?  Newt Gingrich admitted in Oskaloosa, Iowa that about “300 pages” of the 2700 page document included good ideas.  Never would hear that in a debate. There'’s no time and no good questions. 

Candidates never had to defend their SuperPACS which both parties will take advantage of to spread lies and near-lies.  The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC allows corporations to spend unlimited money without identifying themselves.  What do candidates think about the decision, about super pacs, —about lying?  No time.  Instead, tonight’s debate sponsored by CNN, Fox News and Chevrolet would like to ask this question for the seventh time—but with tonight’'s added twist:
What will you do if your granddaughter announces she wants to marry a gay illegal alien?

At least make the debates fun.  Bring in Alex Trebek.  Make the candidates have to respond in the form of a question.   We would not learn anything less than the current debate format offers.

One last question: Is the current short answer/short response model of debates because the moderators don'’t think the politicians are smart enough to give anything but short answers? Or is it they think the audience is too dumb to pay attention to the longer answers?