I just finished reading the account in the New York Post about Ted Cruz's campaign stop yesterday in the Bronx. The coverage focused not on what Cruz had to say; indeed, there was nothing said about it. Instead, the discussion was about the small number of people who turned out at the location and about what some protesters had to say. I'm not going to repeat those inane comments except to say that anyone who followed the campaign and Cruz would know that they were false. It did not matter, however. The media just went with what the wackos had to say.
I'm sure that the reporters get tired of reporting on what the candidates have to say. So what. Shouldn't the voters of New York who are getting their first real look at the candidates want to know their positions rather than what the inevitable protesters have to say? It's New York City, after all. There's no way a Republican presidential candidate is going to appear without some far left group of purported "victims" coming out to protest. It's as sure a thing as the sun rising in the east.
This type of coverage is what leads to the loss of substance in the campaign. What is Trump's plan to fix international trade? We don't know. No one in the media has forced an answer to that question after literally thousands of interviews. We do know the details of what Trump thinks of Megyn Kelly, and we know that he condemns our current trade treaties. We just have no idea how Trump would change those treaties or how Trump would propose to get all the other countries to accept those changes. It's a centerpiece of Trump's campaign, but the media doesn't pursue the answers on this question.
With Bernie Sanders, the same problem exists. It's taken until this past week for someone in the media to ask Bernie Sanders how he would break up the big banks. For about a year, Sanders has been condemning Wall Street and railing against "too big to fail" banks. Now, when the primary season is more than two thirds over, a reporter finally asked Sanders how he would remedy that problem. And here's the key: Sanders doesn't know what he would do. That's not my comment on his position; it is what he actually said. He doesn't even have criteria he would use to determine which banks are too big to fail. How could he get this far without someone asking.
And what of Hillary Clinton? To be fair, Hillary avoids the media for the most part. She only speaks to reporters that she knows to be friends. Nevertheless, there have been a whole series of debates during which she had to answer or duck. Why haven't there been hard questions asked of her.
And I don't want to leave out John Kasich. He's pretty much an afterthought at this point, but he's still in the race. When's the last time you heard a reporter ask him a policy question? We've heard over and over again his answers about how he could possibly get the nomination. We just don't hear what he wants to do if elected.
Will America wake up and demand that we have what the media likes to call a "serious conversation" about the future of our country? Isn't it time that the substance outweighed the process, the celebrity and the personality of the race and the candidates?
I'm sure that the reporters get tired of reporting on what the candidates have to say. So what. Shouldn't the voters of New York who are getting their first real look at the candidates want to know their positions rather than what the inevitable protesters have to say? It's New York City, after all. There's no way a Republican presidential candidate is going to appear without some far left group of purported "victims" coming out to protest. It's as sure a thing as the sun rising in the east.
This type of coverage is what leads to the loss of substance in the campaign. What is Trump's plan to fix international trade? We don't know. No one in the media has forced an answer to that question after literally thousands of interviews. We do know the details of what Trump thinks of Megyn Kelly, and we know that he condemns our current trade treaties. We just have no idea how Trump would change those treaties or how Trump would propose to get all the other countries to accept those changes. It's a centerpiece of Trump's campaign, but the media doesn't pursue the answers on this question.
With Bernie Sanders, the same problem exists. It's taken until this past week for someone in the media to ask Bernie Sanders how he would break up the big banks. For about a year, Sanders has been condemning Wall Street and railing against "too big to fail" banks. Now, when the primary season is more than two thirds over, a reporter finally asked Sanders how he would remedy that problem. And here's the key: Sanders doesn't know what he would do. That's not my comment on his position; it is what he actually said. He doesn't even have criteria he would use to determine which banks are too big to fail. How could he get this far without someone asking.
And what of Hillary Clinton? To be fair, Hillary avoids the media for the most part. She only speaks to reporters that she knows to be friends. Nevertheless, there have been a whole series of debates during which she had to answer or duck. Why haven't there been hard questions asked of her.
And I don't want to leave out John Kasich. He's pretty much an afterthought at this point, but he's still in the race. When's the last time you heard a reporter ask him a policy question? We've heard over and over again his answers about how he could possibly get the nomination. We just don't hear what he wants to do if elected.
Will America wake up and demand that we have what the media likes to call a "serious conversation" about the future of our country? Isn't it time that the substance outweighed the process, the celebrity and the personality of the race and the candidates?
No comments:
Post a Comment