If Mitt Romney had promised in the debate to write (once elected) every American a check for $50,000, our pundits would still have stood around congratulating the man for coming out the winner.
They see it as their job to be psychologists rather than experts.
Imagine if we had both Obama and Romney give a presentation on particle physics. Then we asked a panel of physicists which presenter did a better job of educating the people about particle physics. What would we think if the physicists talked about who was more aggressive or who blinked more, totally ignoring that Romney was describing organic chemistry instead of particle physics while Obama actually dealt with the subject at hand?
Why do all our pundits, who all follow politics religiously, think it not their job to explain the facts and that their expertise is best put to use pretending to know how people feel?
Because the irony of punditry is that in politics, facts are meaningless because morons can vote for whomever they choose. Ergo, modern politics isn’t about facts, it’s about psychology.
Perfect analogy!
Because, while they’re perfectly capable of handicapping eye contact, etc., by and large they don’t have the intellectual capability of analyzing complex pieces of legislation, nor are they inclined to do so.
I really liked what Lawrence O’Donell had to say about the debate last night on his show. Pretty much everyone else on MSNBC, even Rachel, was saying Romney won. Rachel actually said it was unanimous. Then, Lawrence came on and said this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/49297086#49297086
And I thought to myself: exactly.
link goes to a front page. what video should I look for?
Oops. Does this work?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/49297086#49297086
Just in case, it’s the video on the top: “Rewriting the Debate.”
yes, very interesting, thanks
That’s a great “The Rewrite” segment. I saw it last night. The Bull and the Matador – an apt metaphor.
A long time ago I noticed that Obama plays Republicans like a matador plays a bull. I liked the final line: “And what does a matador finally do with a bull?”
I think there’s a trend here in Booman’s posts today. He’s making a case for Sesame Street. Don’t you see it? What if our children learned their values from Sally Quinn or from our political media instead of from Big Bird, Elmo, Oscar, Ernie, Bert, Kermit, Fozzie, Grover and the gang? They would be monsters. Evil monsters.
That Booman is a very clever fellow.
Of course he is making the case for Sesame Street–he has Finny to think about!
To them, politics is just an arm of the entertanmentindustrial complex.
Panem et circenses. Er, well, without the bread, if you’re a Republican.
I posted this in the other debate thread too, but I’ll post it again here so it attracts a few more eyeballs.
Not only did Mitt lie all over the place in the debate, but he cheated too. Here’s the proof.
Whoops – this has been debunked as a handkerchief.
Please disregard. For the time being, based on the evidence present he is just a liar.
My response collided with your retraction. Sorry ’bout that.
No worries. Mostly I was just curious what was on the sheet (had it been one) since he really seemed to be just making shit up on the fly.
Of course he cheated! Not by reading notes off a handkerchief, but by lying his ass off! The post you link to mentions a “no props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings” rule for the debates. If there isn’t an explicit “no lying” rule, I’d like to think it’s because it goes without saying. At any rate, if we’re going to say Mitt didn’t technically cheat because there is a “no notes” rule but not a “no lying” rule, that’s one hell of a loophole.
Except it falls more heavily onto the surface than a handkerchief would; it’ a handkerchief wrapped around something flat
Meh. Saw the other post about this. And again, meh.
Newsflash: Guys like Romney cheat. What are we to do? Make a Federal Case of it and look like the sore losers? The guy’s a fraud and a pathological liar. Most people already see that. Let his ship sink on its own without us coming off as wild-eyed conspiracy theorists. That would be really unattractive and would distract from the bigger issues that people care alot about. It’s much more fun to watch his “patriotic” supporters complain about “cooked jobs numbers” and praying for imminent economic collapse.
Well, given that MSNBC had Matthews reporting from Denver outside the hall from a set that looks and feels like what you’d normally see on ESPN’s “Gameday” on any given Saturday, one should not be terribly surprised that they totally thought Rmoney cleaned the President’s clock. Facts, or truth if you will have no bearing in an atmosphere created to look like the big game. the only think missing was Howard Fineman ripping off his shirt to show a Rmoney t-shirt underneath ala Lee Corso putting on the helmet of the team he expects to prevail.
Just good sound journalism, what’s the big deal/
Actually there was a fair amount of fact-checking the debate in the press. I’m posting this particular link even though, like most in the CYA media, they present it in a “both sides do it” frame, or “Romney said this, but then again, Obama said that”. But it has the advantage of being a survey and giving links to a bunch of other press sources so you can get an idea of who did fact-checks.
http://theweek.com/article/index/234298/the-obama-romney-debate-fact-check-who-told-the-biggest-whop
pers
In the finest spirit of American punditry, “The Week” has really knocked itself out to try to even the score, but if you read through the BS it’s not hard to see who really “told the biggest whoppers”.
Included is a fact-check joke:
Obama: Twenty years ago Wednesday, “Michelle Obama agreed to marry me”
The verdict: Half-True
As “an astute tweeter noted,” say NPR’s Mark Memmott and Scott Montgomery, “20 years ago, the First Lady’s last name was Robinson,” not Obama.
Here is the same idea transformed into an Obama ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wG5e7zAJF4
Nice Hyperbole! (i.e. writing a 50,000 check for everyone)
Here’s the reality…the Mainstream Media, in the tank for Obama, cannot control the narrative in October…the debates are real news, and bypass the MSM…we have three more debates in less than three weeks…
Romney will continue to defeat Obama, and Ryan will certainly crush Biden…Romney, when forced to be himself without his advisors, just has a better command of facts and policy than Obama…
You can do all the “fact-checking” you want, but you truly have no smoking gun from debate one.
Romney is the better President, and will show the American people over the next month
Blaming the help? A first-rate manager hires first-rate people. A second-rate manager hires third-rate people. Which candidate has better advisors? (he asked rhetorically)
Let me guess since you have such contempt for truth and fact checking.
You are a birther who does not believe in global warming. You think fluoride in your water is a communist plot and cigarettes don’t cause cancer.
Ah I get it your a dumbass. Your boy Mitt the Liar is going down in November. When it happens you can just pretend he is the president on your planet. Planet Whacko I believe.
Nice ad homenin attack!
Don’t believe in “climate change'”… Shitty science, and you know it.
But somehow, you conflate that with “birtherism” (I’m quite sure Obama’s a U.S. citizen), and a belief about…!!!…!!!…???…???Flouride!!!???!!!???
Nice STRAW MAN!!!…conflate birtherism and anti-Flouridism with a disputation with Global Warming…WHOOPS…climate change…
Goebbels would be proud of you!!
Hey Nick, I was wondering where you were.
Good to see your not dead boy.
Thank you and have a double chococashew latte on me.
Found your pom-poms again? Ah, good for you. You have the confidence of a man who just had his biases confirmed for the first time in months. Who will you blame, I wonder, when Romney still loses handily in November?
someone should take grandpa Jack back to the nursing home.
Jack Welch: `No Evidence’ Of BLS Conspiracy, But I Stand By BLS Conspiracy
Tucker Carlson shared some of his Kool Aid.
It is sad to watch heroes and legends disintegrate so publicly, isn’t it? That was a pretty easy take-down, even for Tweety.
Jack Welch always was a jerk. It was Wall Street and the business media that lionized him.
I know. Just like with Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan, the Wall Street media has always shown so much deference to his every word and taken his opinions as pronouncements from the almighty.
Must be difficult for them lately, huh? Poor dears…
Isn’t it obvious why the media are drama critics about the debates?
The CPD negotiates a BS agreement between the two campaigns, the sole purpose of which is to turn the debates into a joint parallel infomercial. It is criticized for the drama because it is just kabuki.
Look at Lehrer and the first format. That’s the Republican candidate’s moderator and format. And look at how good the moderator is at enforce the BS agreement.
The media knows its BS. And treat it as such. Except when they have the vested interest not to.
I coach high school debate, and I can tell you it is, even at this level, about perception! So, the reporters emphasis on psychology is not that far off. The problem is that they are amateurs and doing the analysis from in front of their word processor and therefore are no more accurate in their analysis their any other psychologist who tries to ply their trade by guessing what their patients are thinking without talking to them or even being in the same room.
As for fact checking effecting a debate at any level, and especially the Presidential level, forget it. At some point during the debate itself, usually long before the last speech, the “judges” know who they are going to vote for and they are busy formulating in their heads reasons to justify their decision. Its perception and framing and timing, not facts that decide the outcome.
I heard some astute ass suggest to watch the debate w/o sound to determine the winner. Smirks count, dammit!