Holy Crap!

[Alelou]

TV and radio have never been good with in-depth stories. If that's all someone relies on, they are indeed going to get a shallower understanding of this stuff, and will more likely be swayed by whichever way the media herd happens to be running at the moment (assuming these viewers are not already parked at a channel with obvious bias, like Fox or MSNBC). Or they'll go with whoever has the cutest sound bites and best fits their inherent biases. People who don't read at least one daily newspaper paper or spend some time delving in reliable journalism on the web just aren't going to get the same level of understanding. If they really hate reading, they could at least watch the News Hour on PBS for something a little more in-depth (if soporific). If you take your job as a citizen of a democracy seriously, you invest some and effort time in it. Even if you don't do it on a regular basis, you really should try to do it before an election this important.

[Linda]

I have already been over their records; I know the sources to find that. I am just worried about who the candidates think they will persuade with the crap they are flinging now. It is scary wondering how many people base their voting choices on the distortions.

[justTripn]

When the choice was between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama (for a Democrat voting in the primaries), knowing their positions on the issues didn't help alot because they had the same positions. It was all about who you trust. Then once I have decided on a candidate, I don't need to hear them rehash everything 20 times. In my job, I get real in-depth analysis of economic issues without even trying (assistant editor at an economics journal). I don't want to listen to this stuff nonstop. Plenty of people around me are, so I will be alerted to any new developments. Lazy? I feel it's more efficient. It gets me down to follow the election for 2 hours a night. I try to escape it.

[Linda]

I don't seek the distorted stuff either. But I am aware of it because it is pervasive - in post office mail, in emails, phone solicitations, people ringing my doorbell to promote a candidate, and every time I turn on the TV (which is not often). It feels like an attack, a home invasion of sorts.

[Alelou]

I guess I can understand that, but I eat it all up with a spoon. I love politics even if it makes me crazy. This is history unfolding around us. This is us MAKING history. These are decisions that could determine the course of the rest of our lives and our children's lives. And there's a kind of recognizable, predictable pattern and code even in the distortions. They're part and parcel of what these parties stand for.

Really, though, I don't think it's very hard to listen to what these candidates actually say in a setting that isn't geared to their respective bases (as, for example, in last night's debate) and clearly discern very different policies and values. Their records are not very different from what they are propounding even if they do shade them in one direction or another. I honestly don't understand people who haven't made up their minds at this point. Either they're hoping for some pure, perfectly aligned candidate that will never exist in any political system on earth, or they're somehow deeply torn between the evidence before their eyes and their deepseated preferences.

[Linda]

Well, geez, that puts me in my place, doesn't it? Just because I do not like overkill in politics. I do my civic duty even if I don't LIKE politics of the bombastic kind. I love history and deserning the social and technological trends in it. So pardon me for being an introvert and shying away from overbearing politics! I'm outa this thread now.

[blacknblue]

I guess i just get tired of being lied to incessantly, condescended to, and shrieked at on a daily basis.

BTW, my parents for instance DO put in the time and effort. BUT the only outlets that they HAVE are tv, radio and the local newpaper. FYI, the local newspaper is owned by a local family who also owns the local cable company. And if I am not mistaken owns three of the local tv stations. The also possess a selection of gilt edged certificates, suitable for framing, attesting to their sole and exclusive possession of the hindquarters, genitalia and immortal souls of a solid three quarters of the city council members.

Where in the name of anything at all are elder people like my parents supposed to acquire an in-depth degree of information, when they are neither computer literate, nor physically adept enough to operate a computer? I tried. I built and gave them one. They simply could not operate it. Arthritis, plus innate inability to adapt. They are both 80. You gotta be realistic. But because they have been paying takes, fighting in Korea, supporting the country and holding up their end of the deal for 8 decades does not mean that they should be deprived of accurate, in-depth information about the election does it? I tell them what I read, but THEY WANT IT DIRECTLY for themselves. Only reasonable I think. Where do they get it? CNN? Not likely. The major networks? Hah! Hah hah! It is to laugh. Chuckle. Chortle. Guffaw even.

[dialee]

I think a lot of us lose sight of the forest for the trees that are constantly thrown at us in this era of 24/7 news media punditry and advocacy. And it is advocacy for a particular viewpoint, make no mistake about it. The era of objective news gathering and reporting was long over (if we ever had it).

SPECIFIC EXAMPLES REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR. Please we need to stay general. No advocating for cadidates (or reminders of scandalous information on candidates) unless it is directly related o Star Trek.

So much information is thrown at us now that it is up to us as individuals or families or groups to sift through the dross for the gold nugget and get a sense of who the candidates are. To get back to my original point, the information is out there for us to dig out and make our own decisions. And unfortunately if we can't dig anymore and are more reliant on the media sources, we just need to pray more and be more discerning. I find that C-Span can be pretty objective in the sense that they will televise a candidate event in the whole and not edit toward a point of view.

[Alelou]

BnB, can your parents get to the library? There are many more resources there. Even a weekly subscription to a decent news magazine might help. I agree, a single local paper is not necessarily a great source of information.

And Linda, I was not trying to put you in your place. Didn't you already say you had decided on a candidate? It's people who are undecided at this point that I find hard to understand. But obviously, this is a subject I get passionate about. I confess, at least during elections I'm a political junkie.

[Alelou]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008 ... al-debate/

Here's the NYTime's excellent fact-check article on last night's debate. I don't know if they make you register to see it, but there's no cost if they do.

Another great source is http://factcheck.org/

[blacknblue]

They both still require internet access. I don't depend on news organizations for fact checks anyway. I go back to the actual gov't voting records, or news archive records. etc.

Not a trusting soul when it comes to organized authority, i will admit.

[blacknblue]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/check-point-the-second-presidential-debate/

Here's the NYTime's excellent fact-check article on last night's debate. I don't know if they make you register to see it, but there's no cost if they do.

Another great source is http://factcheck.org/

Another difficulty is the "Who shall watch the watchmen?" syndrome. CNN pretends to offer a fact checking page to keep the politicians honest. But anyone who looks at it with an impartial eye (and bothers to count) will note that there is a discrepancy in the way it addresses the two candidates.

Factcheck.org is another one. In the interest of avoiding violation of site rules concerning advocacy, I will refrain from quoting anything in this link. I merely post it for anyone who wishes to check it out. The page linked below questions factcheck.org's impartiality, and also claims that they are being financed by a certain group with close ties to a specific candidate.

http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx ... 574&Type=1

It offers links to what it purports to be the sources from which it derives this information. I decline to engage in further debate on this one. My purpose is to point out that even the "watchdogs" are suspect nowadays. Is truth a lost art?

I am voting antidisestablishmentarian this year.