I know Clinton supporters are angry
by
Thevail
06/09/2008, 9:14 PM #
Especially about the MSM treatment of Hillary Clinton. I can see that, and pretty much argree. Although I didn't exactly see Obama getting a free ride back in the 2007 "inevitable" period.
And I've heard that a lot of you are making your feelings known to the media. Kudos.
I've written a couple of letters to some of the media outlets myself about what I see another facet of this sort of coverage.
Basically that all of the media is far too biased in their coverage of all of these candidates vs. any coverage at all about the actual issues.
I don't want to make my decision for president based on something stupid like hair, or fist-bumps, or suit collars, the way they laugh, or what some other random talking head said about whether they're a cat or dog person.
And I really don't want to have to think that millions of Americans out there who may not have access to the internet made their decision based on that garbage either.
I think that this sensationalist and trivialist trend in media coverage only fosters the inertia of the status quo by magnifying anything (gender and race come to mind) out of the ordinary into an "event".
This is, to my mind, why we had to have the "pant-suit" wars, the "cleavage" circus, etc. etc. as well as "muslim" wars, and "what-my-pastor said" gate.
It's just stupid. I'd like to ask that if you get a chance, please, when you're telling the media off, if you'd include something about the total lack of substance in most newscasts vs. the overabundance of shmuck, I'd appreciate it.