I kept trying to find and take the high road on the show. I said we can't judge the electorate by a few hotheads and lunatics. Nonetheless, I said, this election is more negative in the sense that people are voting against rather than voting for. Bush is no Reagan for the Republicans; Kerry is no Clinton for the Democrats. The host said that each side is trying to get votes out of fear of the other side. Right.
They tried to say it's all about Iraq. I said that's too simplistic. There are many more issues here.
I said the problem is that we're treating each other as enemies when we have a real enemy to fight.
They tried to blame bloggers for the Bush-box-on-his-back story. I said we're on major media right now and we're wasting time talking about this crap instead of issues.
Have no idea how it came off; no tape of it at home. I'm not soliciting reviews (I know I talk fast.... but I did talk slower). In any case, it was a fun segment.
Debate, the final chapter
: I'm pissed we're not getting more debates. This is damned near the only time we've been discussing issues in this campaign.
: The first question is a right one: Will our children and grandchildren ever live in a world as safe as the one we have known. (Read: Or will we try to convince ourselves that terrorism is a 'nuisance'?)
Rather than giving an answer to how he will accomplish that, Kerry starts by attacking Bush on Iraq. Same Iraq line. Same cargo line. Same bin Laden line. Same, same, same.
Bush says spreading democracy is a solution. "The Afghan people had an election this weekend, and the first voter was a 19-year-old woman." I agree with that
Domestic debate? It's the same as the international debate. It's about safety and terrorism. That is the issue.
: Trivial observations: Kerry looks anemic; Bush looks sunburned. At least this time, one of them isn't standing at a kiddie podium. But by trying to equalize their heights, Bush looks as if he has a huge head, which ain't easy next to big-head Kerry.
: Next question, a good one: How the f did we end up with this mess on flu vaccine. Bush says we cut off the contaminated supply. Actually, the Brits cut it off. "I haven't gotten a flu shot and I don't intend to." Well, I wish I could. He turns this into a trial-lawyer issue. No, it's an issue of bureaucrats f'ing up, big time.
Bush downplays it. Kerry blows it up into the issue of health insurance. That's wrong, too.
Bureacrats f'ed up. That's the story, boys. Take responsibility. Figure out how to fix it. Don't blather and blame. Manage. That's your only job as president. Management.
: Kerry drinking game: "I have a plan." Mmmmm. Good merlot.
Bush: "I want to remind everyone listening tonight [that is to say, wussies not watching baseball] that a plan is not a litany of complaints."
: In the first debate, Bush scowled. In the second debate, he looked as if he'd been shot full of botox. In this debate, he looks like a dog ready to run sniff a butt.
Kerry looks right now as if he is being goosed -- by a short-haired terrier's snout in his butt.
: Kerry argues for pay-as-you-go budgeting. Well, amen.... if we believed that Kerry meant it.
: Kerry: "Being the president talking about fiscal responsibility is a little about Tony Soprano talking about law and order." Trying too hard. Just the kind of nastiness we're fed up with out here.
: I don't buy the only-president-to-lose-jobs jab, by the way. We had 9/11 in this administration. I blame job loss on that first.
: Question to Kerry: "It is fair to blame this administration entirely for this loss of jobs." Right.
: "There's a mainstream in American politics and you sit on the far-left bank," says Bush. That dog don't hunt for me, of course. Treating "liberal" as an insult is ridiculous; it's not something a president of the center does.
: "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?" That may sound like a good way to frame the question but it's not. This is a matter of human rights, not religous philosophy or sociological speculation.
Bush: "I don't know." Kerry: "We're all God's children."
The right answer: It doesn't matter, Bob. Gay people have rights, too.
: On abortion, we repeat the exact same turf with Kerry: Altar boy... not legislate his religion... And Bush: Partial-birth abortion... culture of life... Same, same, same.
: Health care: Bush says the consumer is not involved in the choice and that's the problem. Oh, no, it's far more fundamental and revolutionary than that.
Kerry turns it into Canadian drugs. You know, I still don't understand how we can export drugs and then reimport them at lower costs. Makes no sense.
Bush tries to say that Kerry will have government-run health care (read: Hillary alert!). Kerry says it's not government run.
: MSNBC's Keith Olberman is live-blogging the debate.
He tries too hard with a motif of scoring a fight. He should rely on substance, not gimmicks.
: Weird moment as Bush says something about quoting media not being credible and then cutting himself off with an "oh, nevermind." Wacky.
: I refuse to get into the Social Security debate. I'm denying that I'm eligible for AARP. I'm glazing, too, on immigration and the minimum wage. Sorry.
: Bush says he will not have a litmus test for judges on Roe v. Wade. But he will (from the earlier debate) on "under God" in the pledge. Then he says that Kerry has a litmus test.
Well, of course, they have litmus tests. The question is: which tests?
: Now gun control. Now affirmative action. It's as if he has a presidential punchlist: Got to hit every basic issue quickly and without new turf. The citizens last week did a better job with their questions.
: Now God. "Frankly, I think we have a lot more loving of our neighbors to do," says Kerry. Huh?
: Nick Gillespie says (via Glenn) that both these guys are losing.
No, we're losing.
That's the bottom line of this debate so far: Damn, it's a bad choice.
: I'll see your Republican and raise you a Democrat: Kerry brags about working with McCain, Bush about working with Kennedy. Divided, hell, we're not divided.
Bush turns it around: "My opponent keeps mentioning John McCain." John McCain is for Bush, says Bush.
: Bob does a weird riff on being surrounded by strong women with two daughters each. Each of these news anchors has to ask a bullshit question. Again, the citizens were better.
Bush turns it into a joke about his language skills. Kerry turns it into a joke about "marrying up" and then into a sappy moment about his dying mom: "Remember: 'Integrity, integrity, integrity.'" Oh, man.
: I expected Kerry to win this debate hands-down, given my views on domestic issues. I hoped it would shift the needle. But I still focused on the bad choice we have.
: You want a score? Zero-zero in extra innings.
: The only real conclusion from this debate is that we should have more debates -- for they are the only opportunities we have had to dwell on issues rather than mud and they have had big impact on the election -- and they should all be run by the citizens, not the journalists.
: Three weeks now. Just three weeks.
Speaking of jumping the shark...
: I think the 9/11 Commission Report has now jumped the shark, with its National Book Award nomination. This lovefest has officially gone too far.
Jumping the snark
: The NY Sun -- if anybody noticed -- executes a ham-handed slam of Gawker media, talking to a list of Gawker's covetous competitors who are, of course, more than happy to nod their heads at the spin the reporter presents: that Gawker has jumped the shark.
But, of course, the real bottom line here is that by thinking that this infant media thing deserves such front-page venom, the Sun is saying that Gawker deserves the attention. Which is to say that it has not jumped the shark. If it had jumped, it wouldn't deserve all the effort and play.
It's not easy to snark a snarker.
On TV
: As of now, I'm skedded to be on CNBC's Capitol show at 7 p.m. talking about election rage. Mud media.
Watching Bush's back
: Salon is still speculating that Bush the lump on Bush's back was a wire. But this morning, Howard Stern said it's a bulletproof vest. Clearly, he knows about them and he said he could see just where the buckles were. But he guesses Bush doesn't want to admit wearing one.
And we wonder why health-care costs skyrocket
: David Isenberg finds this tale of a doctor scalping flu shots in Boca:
One man in the flu shot line Monday at Publix in the Garden Shops at Boca told a tale of trying to pay a doctor to get a flu shot for his mother.
“I offered the doctor $1,000,” the man, who did not want his name used, said. “He called me back and told me he would do it for $2,500. I asked him if he was crazy.”
Buzzmaschine
: I wrote a piece for Netzeitung, the German net-only paper, about weblogs and journalism. I wish I'd been able to write it in German, but they translated it for me. Michael Maier, the editor of Netzeitung, asked me to write it after we talked. He understands citizens' media but other German journalists don't... yet.
: And it's so nice to see oneself insulted in another language as a result. A commenter here calls me a bitter, old reactionary. That I can translate.
: Now the Instapundit of Germany, der Schockwellenreiter, calls me a multi-purpose blogging weapon for the conservatives. I replied that I'm voting for Kerry, so that must make me a secret weapon. (If I did my translating correctly, that is.)
: More German links here und hier.
: Not that you should possibly care, since you've seen it all here before, but hte English version of the story is tucked behind that "more" link.
Weblogs are the best thing to happen to journalism since the invention of word processing – only most journalists won’t admit it yet.
Take American TV anchor Dan Rather. Within hours of broadcasting a report on President Bush’s military service -- based on what he said were newly uncovered memos -- bloggers exposed them as likely and clumsy forgeries. Rather complained of a “counterattack” by “partisan political operatives.” But what he should have done was say, “Thank you.” He should have seen that bloggers could help him get to the truth. After all, the truth is supposed to be the product of journalism, isn’t it?
Bloggers are merely citizens with printing presses. This gives them new power.
They can, in the words of blogger Ken Layne (at KenLayne.com) “fact check your ass.”
They can report news. Bloggers have posted eyewitness accounts and photos about news events ranging from fires to political conventions and they are beginning to help newspapers get more local in their coverage.
But most important, these people can simply tell us what the people are thinking. They can turn news from a one-way lecture into a two-way conversation.
The wise journalist will listen to bloggers both to read the pulse of the people and simply to get story ideas. The wise blogger, meanwhile, will see that journalists work hard and even risk their lives to bring news to the people; they have the resources, training, access, and standards not everyone can have. Bloggers and journalists are not – or should not be – competitive. They are complementary. Together, they can improve news.
I am both a journalist – now an internet executive, formerly a newspaper and magazine editor – and a blogger (at Buzzmachine.com). Blogging has changed my career and my life in many ways. I have developed a new respect for the wisdom of democracy and of the citizenry. I have learned a great deal from fellow bloggers around the world: I began reading and linking to Germany’s active blog scene a few years ago – getting into conversations and making friendships that would not have been possible otherwise. This led to my discovery of an incredible Iranian blogging culture (started at Hoder.com) and, in turn, to being present at the start of the Iraqi blog scene (see HealingIraq and BLOG TK, written by bloggers who are now running for the Iraqi National Assembly). On the local news sites I oversee, bloggers are giving us local news and new viewpoints we never could have afforded to gather on our own, helping us expand our coverage and audience. Thus, blogging may even help save journalism from the economic threats posed by the loss of advertising revenue from print and TV to online.
In America, more than in Europe, we have believed that journalism should be objective, free of any viewpoint. But bloggers are teaching us that that is difficult unto impossible to achieve – and perhaps not even desirable. Here, FoxNews is beating all its competitors because it has a viewpoint on the news. On the other end of the political spectrum, London’s Guardian is gaining a large U.S. audience online because of its viewpoint. And blogs are popular because they are very much about their authors’ viewpoints.
So bloggers are helping to teach us that perhaps we would be better off to reveal our own viewpoints as journalists, when we have them and when they are relevant. Not to reveal them – to have hidden agendas – is lying by omission.
Following recent scandals in American journalism – including lying reporter Jayson Blair on the New York Times – there have been calls from bloggers especially for a new culture of transparency in American journalism: We need to reveal our prejudices and our processes, including the shocking news that reporters and editors are human and can make mistakes.
I went to a meeting of leaders in American journalism to discuss just this topic and said: “This culture of transparency expects us to be transparent. And haven’t we always expected those we cover to be transparent? Haven’t we demanded openness, frankness, honesty and a hearing from the politicians, business people and civic leaders we cover? So it is our turn to open the shades, to reveal our process and prejudice, to engage in the conversation, to join in the community, to be transparent.”
This is a byproduct, I believe, of the open-source revolution in technology. The open-source ethic prooves that together, we can improve a product – whether that is a computer program or news or democracy – if we openly and honestly share what we know with our fellow citizens.
(I would like to hear whether weblogs are having an impact on German and European news media. If you have anything to share, please email me.)
Archives:
06/05 ...
05/05 ...
04/05 ...
03/05 ...
02/05 ...
01/05 ...
12/04 ...
11/04 ...
10/04 ...
09/04 ...
08/04 ...
07/04 ...
06/04 ...
05/04 ...
04/04 ...
03/04 ...
02/04 ...
01/04 ...
12/03 ...
11/03 ...
10/03 ...
09/03 ...
08/03 ...
07/03 ...
06/03 ...
05/03 ...
04/03 ...
03/03 ...
02/03 ...
01/03 ...
12/02 ...
11/02 ...
10/02 ...
09/02 ...
08/02 ...
07/02 ...
06/02 ...
05/02 ...
04/02 ...
03/02/a ...
03/02/b ...
02/02 ...
01/02 ...
12/01 ...
11/01 ...
10/01 ...
09/01 ...
Current Home
