Media Pundits Are Like Movie Critics - Only Worse
By Randall Nunn (10/04/04)
Listening to the pundits analyze the Bush-Kerry debate on Thursday night reminded me of the experience so often observed when one reads a movie critic’s review of a current film and then watches the movie, leaving with a totally different impression than that created by the critic. It seemed as if almost all the media pundits focused on superficial things such as how the statements were delivered, “head room”, tone of voice and demeanor.
One would think that a candidate who delivers a vague, meaningless and evasive answer in a firm, ponderous voice while looking straight into the camera gets high marks even if his opponent delivers more substantial and direct answers. Are these pundits really so shallow? Yes, I think they are, because perception seems to be everything with them.
First, it should be noted that Jim Lehrer’s questions were tinged with a slight liberal bias, in that he put no really difficult questions to Senator Kerry, while he had at least one “loaded” question aimed at President Bush. Come on, now, Jim—were you really expecting the president to use the Swift Boat veterans’’s indictment of Kerry to attack his character? We used to be taught to look at the substance of a person’s words and not the smoothness of the delivery. But listening to the pundits, it is easy to see that they are enamored of things like tone, delivery, “gravitas” and non-content aspects of the debate even more than substance. I am beginning to see why “Slick Willie” was so successful in creating the illusion that he was some sort of master politician and great speaker. If Slick Willie ever had any substance to him, it was only because he was carrying a large rock in his pocket.
I will admit that there were times when I longed for President Bush to deliver a strong rebuke to Senator Kerry for his pandering and posturing. For instance, it would have been nice if he had noted that the Vietnam War was lost largely because of the efforts of the liberal media and a minority of anti-war protesters, of whom Senator Kerry was an outspoken leader, and that Senator Kerry appears to be trying to sap the American will in very much the same manner with respect to the war in Iraq. The mainstream media has openly sided with Senator Kerry in this race and President Bush needs to use every opportunity to portray the Massachusetts Senator for what he is whenever he has a listening national audience. The president’s campaign speeches are effective but with the filter and bias applied by the liberal spin machine in the mainstream media, the only ones who hear and get the full import of the message are those listening to the speeches in person.
Senator Kerry made two very significant blunders in the debate, either of which should cause thinking voters to pause before casting their vote. First, he tried to have it both ways (as usual) when he said that the U.S. should pursue both multilateral discussions with North Korea and direct negotiations by the U.S. only, in trying to resolve the nuclear weapons issue. Even the most amateur negotiator or politician should realize that such a strategy would only cause all of the other partners in the multilateral discussions to walk out in disgust. The answer was naĂŻve and bordering very closely on being stupid. The answer should make all question whether Senator Kerry is ready for the job he is seeking.
The second big mistake was when Senator Kerry said that the use of preemptive force was appropriate if it passed “the global test” and you can “prove to the world” that you took the action for legitimate reasons. Senator Kerry has placed a qualifier on the use of preemptive force that when applied by his vacillating, indecisive liberal mind will probably mean that no strong preemptive action would be taken by him unless the United Nations “blessed” it. The United Nations, under Kofi Annan, is an anti-United States, left-leaning bureaucratic monstrosity riddled with corruption that would make the Enron debacle look like amateur night. Do we really want to put the fate of our nation in the hands of those who would love to see us stumble? In the midst of a war—and the war on terrorism is truly a war—the last thing our country needs is someone who does not understand that the whole concept of “preemptive war” depends on speed and decisiveness and that national interest trumps global approval every time. Yes, the debate I watched wasn’t anything like the reviews. Fortunately, the vote this time will be like the box office that comes in strong even after the reviewers panned the movie.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Randall Nunn
