Posted on 01/02/2008 7:21:03 PM PST by jdm
When Instapundit is right, he’s right:
[Fred] Thompson is running the kind of campaign — substantive, policy-laden, not based on gimmicks or sound-bites — that pundits and journalists say they want, but he’s getting no credit for it from the people who claim that’s what they want.
Bingo.
Thompson is a guy who has laid out detailed positions on all sorts of issues. He never gets dinged for misrepresenting facts in debates. And I like the fact that he’s not consumed by ambition. That’s exactly the sort of person we should want as president.
But our moronic news media, which pretends to disdain overambitious candidates and to care about policies — doesn’t really care about substance. For them, it’s all about the horse race, the gimmicks, and the pizzazz. Big Media editors are every bit as superficial as you voters, if not more so.
Remember when the oh-so-substantive editors of the L.A. Times swooned about how “handsome” John Edwards was, and how “Lincolnesque” Kerry was — compared to the “lumpish” Cheney, and Bush with his “patented smirk”? We were told that none of this should matter . . . “But you know it does.” Remember how the critical issue in the 2005 mayoral race — the one thing that L.A. Times columnists and reporters couldn’t stop talking about — was whether the incumbent was too “dull”?
This is the sort of deep, substantive commitment to the issues that matters to these giants of the political commentariat.
And so, when a guy like Thompson comes along, who is serious and substantive — but maybe a little dull — they focus on the dullness. If he seems not to be driven by a lifelong hunger for power, they’ll distort his honest and engaging quotes on the subject to make him sound like he doesn’t care.
These people are full of it. The next time they tell you they care about the issues and matters of substance, remind them how they treated Fred Thompson. They won’t show any shame. But that doesn’t mean you can’t show them that you know better.
Thanks for the keywords (assuming it was you). :O)
The most ugly truth is that the same media that covers these events also get their revenue from campaign advertising. It’s a conflict of interest that by creating ever tighter races by selective reporting, they get more revenue from campaigns that fill the airwaves and print media with more and more advertising.
If reporters treated it with the objectivity that the subject deserves, nine times out of ten, they’d be cutting off the supply of money that pays them. The first articles on Hunter’s campaign were pretty blunt assessments (why?) that then shifted to a scrappy underdog, that shifted again as the campaign gained money. Since he’s pretty much out of funds, they’re back to not mentioning him, or wondering why.
The Huckster’s campaign got a tremendous amount of coverage because, well, he was being shepherded by Ed ‘Advertise MORE!’ Rollins, and outlets knew they could cash in on the campaign with more and more coverage of him. And Romney had to up his expenditures so he could prove he could win somewhere other than Massachusetts, so having a contender against him who was well funded fueled more advertising, and McCain had to start advertising to prove that he was still an option...
It just feeds on itself. So reporters gloss over all the negatives and stupidity, to fuel more ad revenue so they can afford to go to the next campaign event.
I can’t help but agree.
I would go a step further.
From what I have seen in the articles posted on FR over the years, the MSM do not have the depth and breadth of knowledge to address the issues raised by someone like Mr. Thompson.
These media types are the low end of the college graduates, and cover their lack of knowledge by turning everything into a sound bite.
And then, to fill their quota of articles to get paid, simply rehash what their media counterparts have already written, omitting some things entirely if they don’t meet their liberal agenda/level of knowledge.
True enough. But how many people supposedly on “our” side have done the same? Conveniently I’m seeing a few find religion or admit error the last couple of days. But it’s a little bit late for that. the cynical part of me thinks they are doing so to try and redeem their reputations after saying they want one thing then laughing and impugning Thompsonfor being the embodiment of what they said they wanted.
Then maybe there is the thought they want to cover their bases in case he pulls an upset.
I dont know. I’d like to think people have genuinely come to their senses but I’m very disillusioned with “conservative” leaders these days and not just the politicians anymore.
I know the article is about the media, and it’s true, but right now I’m more ticked off at our side. Even so I’d take a late hour conversion and I’m praying for th upset. Not for the man, but for the record and his approach to government and politics apparently being real. If it weren’t, he’s had ample time to bail and pander.
People say they want one thing but then act like they don't.
Good post. I can’t believe the people trying to wedge Huckabee (”He’s Religious!”) and Romney (”He’s Such A Family Man!”) into their Presidential model, when there is Thompson, who is the most conservative man in the race, and who is already Presidential. I guess I’m most disappointed in the way even FReepers can be led by the nose by the Drive-By Media.
It’s getting down to crunch time. Rush should endorse Fred, as he almost did today, and Hunter should throw his support to Fred, as Tancredo should have. Mitt is Bill Clinton with family values, and Huckabee is Bill Clinton with a pulpit.
Screw the media.What a pack of pooofters.
“Screw the media.What a pack of pooofters.”
Exactly. See rule numbers 1, 3, 5, and 7. Right Bruce?
You’ve got my number, it seems...LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.