Letters to the Editor
Timelagged
Published Letters: 244 Editor's Choice: 12
-
All you need is motive
[Read the article: Why campaign coverage sucks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The media has no mind but it has desires. It has no one controlling consciousness, no, but it does have motivations, and as any actor or director or novelist will tell you, motivations are where the action is anyway, the thoughts will follow. The motivations are largely corporate and they're almost entirely about making money.
The focus on the horse race to begin with exists because it creates a spectacle and this makes money. That's the motivation for the mess we have, and in some ways it's all you need to know.
Without it, we could sit down every few years and pick the person who seems most dedicated and effective from among those available, and it could take about three days to decide. It could certainly take a lot less time than it does now anyway.
Almost no one covers the campaigns from the rational perspective, which would be to examine who's best matched to what the citizenry wants and needs. It's almost entirely instead about the viewpoint from the candidate outward, all the discussions are about how she can move this way to attract these people and this is bad for him because he's going to not convince these people, and on and on about essentially who can play the public like a fiddle better than the other, it's entirely about an essentially manipulative and disingenous if not dishonest process.
It's absurd. It's all entirely for the spectacle, and in terms of coverage and the media at least, that's entirely about money.
For a shorter version read Tom Tomorrow's cartoon that just was posted, as usual he nails it best.
-
What's the opposite of fresh
[Read the article: John McCain's endless war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Watching McCain in the debate I realized how eminently beatable he is, for reasons similar to what you describe. The ad goes like this: Video of Bush lying us into war (easy to find, luckily) followed by some of McCain last week saying "There will be more wars." Then the text with voice over saying "More of the same."
Yes and I agree that HRC isn't that much better on the issue but she's not as bad as McCain, who's writing the ads for us every time he speaks. As you say, it may be red meat for the 29 percenters but for the majority of the country it's something that spoiled putrid long ago.
-
Don't forget what momentum actually means
[Read the article: Is Hillary Clinton's campaign in trouble?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Among other things it means that where Obama will be percieved to be by March 4 (It's only Feb 12 now, remember) will likely be considerably different from today.
The article and a lot of the talk is imagining Ohio and Texas primary results affecting the race as things stand now, which is one thing. What those results will mean if Obama is seen by then as really running away with things, that's another.
In addition, if the voters in Ohio and Texas see it that way when they're voting, then that's another matter again entirely.
-
@-- bird94, rupert c
[Read the article: John McCain is running for sissy in chief]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]mad cows
From reading the posts, it sounds like the Holsteins are angry about this book.
Personally I think they guy's right on in his assessment. Just look at our elecion race.
-- bird94
So you agree that everyone is cowed. Your evidence for this is how angry everyone is and how loudly they express it.
I can see why you like this guy. Your post makes about as much sense as he did.
____
This article is appearing in Salon.
/rimshot
he he he he he.
-- rupert_c
I agree that the article and by all evidence the book are the worst kind of sensationalist headline-grabbing tripe, with a "thesis" that's nothing but a string of non-sequiturs packaged with a provocatively idiotic title.
My question is regarding the implication by you, and others here, that this is somehow "lowering" Salon to some level it wasn't already at.
Have you ever read Camille Paglia?
-
What they'll say in future centuries
[Read the article: This Modern World]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Those early pre-cyborg creatures certainly were amusing sometimes. Their sluglike antics from the days before anything that could be called real human intelligence developed are almost fun to glork about in the media archives, that is if you can take how depressingly primitive and really quite barbaric they were.
It's amazing we ever evolved into what we are now, with these as our ancestors. Of course, the ReGlorklipublicans claim that we didn't evolve from such repulsive backward creatures at all, and on that one point I almost want to agree with them!
Hik hik hik.