Election Eve

Since I work in the media industry, elections is one of the busiest times of the year, even on off-years. Given that this year is a presidential election - and a heated one at that - I am preparing myself for what will surely be a chaotic 48 hours.

I'm constantly fascinated by the media's ability to turn the elections car right or left depending on which reporter says what. Today we rely so much on mass media to deliver our information, and is undeniably a driving force behind many votes. Often this driving force is highly criticized as unfair and intentionally-biased, and those that jump on the media bandwagon are accused of lacking even a single independent thought. While I can be accused of tooting my industry's own horn, seeing first-hand the inner-workings behind a media giant I think gives me a unique perspective.

A good example of how the media has changed the face of the fall race is the presidential debates. In modern America the presidential (and vice-presidential) debates have become a volatile display of attacks and flimsy "facts" leading to days of scrutiny and analysis by experts and politicians and advisers on every side of the fence. Candidates focus on saying what they think people watching want to hear, and throw rocks at their opponent if only for the sake of throwing a rock. Frankly I think it's become a pissing contest between two children, and since the removal of corporal punishment from the school systems, teacher/ moderator has virtually no ability to do anything but chastise and make snide comments from the safety of his/her desk.

Despite my misgivings about debates, I think it's one of the most honest forms of the election season. Put someone on the spot, ruffle their feathers a bit and you'll see their true form (or at least as close as they're able to show in this arena). This is where the media monster rears it's ugly head - the first debate wasn't until 1960, after it was possible to broadcast the event across the country. Never before had the entire population had access to the candidates in real-time. Many have argued that very first debate between Nixon and Kennedy sealed the ballot box - Kennedy is often viewed as the winner of the event, and he went on to squeak by Nixon in a very close November race. This could certainly be a coincidence, however since then debates have undeniably held a large role in the election. In 1976, Gerald Ford made a large blunder during a debate and later lost the race to Jimmy Carter. In 1980 the race was considered close until Ronald Reagan, comfortable in front of cameras, won the debate and later the election by a large margin. Perhaps one of the more amusing debate blunders was in 1992 between Bush Sr., Clinton and Perot when Bush was caught looking at his watch multiple times during the evening. Later he admitted that he was checking to see how much time was left in the debate. At least his son was more entertaining on TV :D

Another (more recently) popular media outlet during elections season is the Internet. Sure, it's popular most days, but how many of you went online to look at McCain's stance on drilling domestically? Or to do more research on Obama's tax plan? The biggest problem with the Internet is the lack of quality control. Any Joe Schmoe can type up a few words and claim them as fact. Throw in a few easily-excitable followers and you've got yourself a mass riot of rumors. I admittedly spend a small chunk of my day discrediting links to other posts people send me. It's never that I think the authors shouldn't say what they have to say - I'm a first ammedment fanatic. However, posing their opinions as fact, or worse, intelligent people believing these opinion pieces as fact is just plain nuts. These are often the same people who throw things at their TV when CNN comes on, claiming media bias and the inability for fact to come out of the media. Didn't your mother teach you not to believe everything you read? This of course is the nasty habit of ours to only believe what we want to believe, supported conveniently by only reading about the theories and ideas you want to believe.

In short, I think the media is a necessary evil. It's a monster that we hate and yet overfeed because we can't stomach the idea of being without it. Is the media always fair? Of course not. The media is run by humans, and last I checked, being fair 100% of the time isn't something any human being is capable of.

This sort of turned into a desperate plea. If you're going to read or watch something, before you decide to believe it or not, read or watch something else on a completely different channel that has a completely different viewpoint. Reading Red State and then backing up what you read by reading Urban Conservative is not really what I mean. I know all blogs and stations have mountains of facts, but if everyone is contradicting each other, they can't all be right :D

Sorry to state the obvious, but it's been thrust in my face a lot the last week, and I finally had to say something. Research first, take it all with a small grain of salt, and assume everyone knows at least a little of the truth and everyone is also stretching the truth a little. How hard is that?