Hello everyone.
I am a guy from Norway that have followed the American medias covering of the debates and the election process for the past months and I would like to share some of my view on it.
From my point of view the TV covering is dominated by trivialities, shallowness and a lack of correct historical facts. While you could in earlier days use the news channels to get an overview over what the different politicians actually where concerned about and grab an understanding of the political lines that divide them, this seems now to be almost impossible. Instead of hearing what Obama, Clinton and Mccain actually are saying you get as a viewer only served small clips followed by long explanations by so-called "experts".
With a few honorable exceptions these experts seem to have in common that they are strongly partial and have a clear political agenda. Objective analysts seem to be a dying race on US TV.
While the enormous challenges the USA stands before, both internationally and withing the US, should be the focus, the media is instead concentrating on twisting any comment so that they sound particularly bad for some voters, lack of skills in bowling and their performance in all types of entertainment shows. How Obama and Mccain where behaving in the talk show "The View" is given more room in the public discussion than what they said in the Senate's Iraq hearing.
And while Hillary Clintons beer- and whisky show in Indiana has been shown time after another, you seldom or nearly ever get to hear what she is saying about her plans on how the US can get out of it's increasing economical problem.
Totally within this observation, half of last Wednesdays debate between Obama and Clinton was used on other things than political issues. And even though Clinton through the debate came with ideas about increased American securities to the states in the Gulf region referring to a potential Iranian attack, almost nobody was concerned about this afterwards.
Under these circumstances will only the ones with a lot of time and interest on their hand be given a real opportunity to make a well thought through political choice.
It is straight forward sad to see that the majority of the voters that will determine who is going to take on the worlds most important political role, is forced to make up their meaning based on a shallow and tendentious ground.
The treatment of Obamas statements on how people that have economical problems often clusters around religion, guns and prejudices illustrates in a striking way what the media coverage has become.
First a piece is picked out from a a longer reasoning where Obama is trying to explain why many American voters from their preferences of values are voting against their economical interests. Instead of the intended understanding of the people with less power, his statements are portrayed as an example on how elitist people look down on people.
In addition the quotation is handed out in media from the "experts" as a gift to the republicans which will be able to one more time define a democratic presidential candidate as without capacity to understand peoples day to day problems. And according to the same media people it is through that type of stigmatization that the republicans have won the elections in 1972, 1988, 2000 and 2004.
Even if some in the media isn't that sure that Obama will be punished by the democratic voters in the upcoming nominations, everyone agree on that this case will be crucial on the 4th of November. In other words, a few unlucky chosen words in San Fransisco is in full sincerity claimed to be going to destroy his possibilities for presidency. Of course Clinton is joining the screaming choir to convince the super delegates about Obamas reduced chances to win.
It's no doubt that Obama could have formulated himself better, and that his statements will be used for what they're worth this fall. But in it's eagerness after making sensations and in the hunt for news to keep the talk going loud, the media is demonstrating it's analytical shallowness. It's completely right that American voters have a strong antipathy against arrogant elite people, and traditionally there's been a preference for "the coolest guy".
But the elections are determined much more by grounding moods and the prevailing spirit of the time in the American society.
If the "experts" would have had a crumb of historical knowledge they would have known that it was not the snobby elite behavior that made the democrats loose the mentioned elections. McGovern lost in 1972 because he championed a semi-isolating foreign policy and because he was politically to far to the left, seen from an American point of view.
Dukakis lost in 1988 because the majority was happy with the Reagan period and because they thought Bush was the most able to continue this.
In 2000 George W. Bush became president because the voters where tired from political scandals in the White House, and in 2004 Kerry lost because Bush appeared to be best able to handle crisis in a time where many felt insecure/unsafe.
In the same way the election this fall will be determined by what is the major mood in the opinion and by which of the candidates in a credible way best will meet this.
Another thing that totally seems to be forgotten is that shall the type of labels that one now tries to attach to Obama stick, they have to be in line with an already established view on the candidate. The flip-flop statements and the surfing of John Kerry in 2004 got stuck because they fired up under the prevailing view on him. But in Obamas case there can be a reason to doubt if the elite label gets stuck, because this in many ways is conflicting with how the majority so far has seen him.
His presentation has been all other than arrogant, and the Obama couples quite modest circumstances while growing up makes it even more difficult to use this against him. When the critique even comes from the Clintons that the past 8 years have rambled together close to 110.000.000 dollars while Obama still is paying off his student debt, the critics are having a credibility problem.
Even though the American media is doing all they can to prove the opposite, there is still hope that American presidential campaigns can give room for candidates that are thinking and reasoning loudly and that have a belief in the intellect of the voters.
The consequences of Obamas formulation will therefore be a real test on the state in the American democracy.
Good luck with your election
Yours Sincerely
A Norwegian young man, 29 yrs. old.
Sad American TV coverage
Linear Mode
