The Presidential Debates, Part 2: The Press Reaction
The most frightening thing about the media reaction to the first Presidential debate is not the media's obvious bias in favor of Kerry, in keeping with their constant leftward tilt. Indeed, this sort of leaning has been expected of the media for a long while. However, ideological bias is totally different from misreporting. And in a true sense of the term, the coverage of the debate has been misreporting.
Misreporting is not just bad news coverage or sloppy reporting. It is a pattern of such reporting, often missing entirely the focus of the story, or simply ignoring important questions that need to be asked, such as about statements that are not true.
This is not to say that the coverage has contained lies. Most of the accounts of the First Presidential Debate are true; Bush was at times reaching for words, Kerry was more verbally polished and told us a nice little anecdote about Kennedy in Paris. But misreporting of the news is not limited to lies and fabrications.
Rather, "misreporting" also includes cases where the media refuses to question obvious lies. For example, Kerry said during the debates that the September 11 Commission found no terrorist connections to Iraq. The truth is somewhat different. Even the arguably lackluster 9/11 Commission admitted Iraq had terror ties. It has been common knowledge since the Commission issued its report that Iraqi agents met with Al Qaeda agents repeatedly. The fact that these meetings did not result in known, direct assistance of the terrorist plot on 9-11 does not mean they never happened. But the media is hampered by its own bias. it has no reason to call Kerry to task for lying about the Commission, because most media outlets' coverage of the 9-11 Commission gave its report the same tilt as Kerry, clearly misreporting what was really said.
Misreporting also involves looking at those things that are not related to the story. For example, if a man is involved in a car crash in New Jersey, and a news article on the car crash spends 3/4 of its length discussing the weather in San Francisco, it is misreporting. And this is perhaps the most widespread type of misreporting that has plagued Americans seeking honest coverage of the Debate.
By and large, most news coverage has shown a press that either does not understand the nature of a Presidential debate, or has deliberately miscast its focus to avoid reporting what actually transpired. Shockingly, the focus of the reporting was on the practical political craft of the candidates; how they looked, how they played to the camera, if the tone of their voices were steady. The media was reporting on the Debates as if it was not a voicing of ideas, but a rock concert. Essentially, they reviewed the candiates' performance -- but said little about the ideas they articulated. This is important because the differences between the candidates amount to more than the fact that Kerry is a more polished public speaker.
The media perception is that Kerry won the debate because he sounded better. The question of what he said and its implications goes by the wayside. Yet, in a debate, during a wartime campaign, are not the ideas of the candidates important? Not in the view of the media. The perception among many uninformed Americans is that Kerry won -- also, because he "sounded good". That the media -- those charged with informing -- and the uninformed, should share the same view and conclusions, is cause for thinking citizenry to pause. Is the media misreporting because it desired to give the citizenry the impression that Kerry won -- or is the media misreporting because it wants to conform to the erroneous conclusions of ignorant viewers and readers?
Whilst an uninformed -- or misinformed -- citizen could be perhaps expected to regard stagecraft and voice tones as an important part of the Debate, the media, whose job it is to cover the Debate, should be expected to report the ideas that were aired and exchanged. Yes, performance is important, but the ideas artiuclated are more important than how well they are articulated. Yet most mainstream media outlets have simply published and broadcast performance reviews.
So what are the ideas that were articulated? The answer goes a long way towards explaining the misreporting. Kerry stressed "internationalism", cowtowing to would-be "allies" who have their own agenda, and a "global test" for American defense. He talked of the President "proving to the world" that our course was right. Bush focused on proving to the American people.
Kerry won the debate from a "polished speaker" point of view. If all you are considering is his stagecraft, yes, he was a better public speaker. But the ideas that he articulated are, frankly, frightening. When the content, as well as the manner of the speech, is considered, it is clear Kerry lost.
On the war with fundamentalist terrorists, Kerry thinks the threat is no bigger than Bin Laden. He does not understand the global nature of the threat -- and the war -- we face.
On the war in Iraq, Kerry views it as the "wrong place at the wrong time" -- and a "distraction" from the war against fundamentalist terrorists, rather than a part of that war. Kerry also lies about the 9-11 Commission's conclusion on Iraq-terror connections, misrepresenting what the commission concluded.
On overall conduct of defense, Kerry articulates a view in which the American President must "prove tot he world" he has a right to defend his country before acting militarily.
Kerry even wades into class warfare during a war policy debate, claiming that money for the war in Iraq could have been spent on social programs. John Kerry even said that Bush's tax cuts are responsible for America's lack of a secure border and "homeland security", claiming Bush gave the "richest Americans" a tax cut rather than secure the border from potential terror agents. True, the border is not secure, and much could be done. However, the best solution does not necessitate addition funding; it is, simply, enforcement of our existing border laws. And where additional funding is needed, it should be taken not by raising taxes, but by cutting those programs which are not keeping with government's essential functions anyway, such as the social programs Kerry-Edwards woulfd like to expand. Yet, the Democrats and the far left that supports them have been among the biggest opponets of enforcing border law and expelling illegal aliens. Now, Kerry complains our border is not secure and tries to pin the blame on Bush's tax cuts. Some of the President's policy is indeed risky with regard to the border, including is me-too "amnesty" plan for illegals, but by and large this is a Democratic position which the President has adopted. This doesn't obsolve him of blame for it, and it is a worrisome proposal regardless of which political party is behind it. However, the far left, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, have been proposing amnesty for illegal aliens for years. Yet, Kerry's criticism of Bush on borders is not about Bush's ill-founded amnesty plan. Kerry hasn't criticized that, because it is a staple of the left which supports him. instead, he has complained Bush has not spent enough money of defendign our borders. President Bush, ont he other hand, correctly understands that the best way to protect America is not by going through the pockets of every tourist to disembark at JFK International, but to take the offensive and eliminate the enemy -- in his homeland, not ours.
This is not to say that security is not important. It is. But security will not will the war. And Americans rarely desire leaders who encourage them to hide and "live with" the risk of being slaughtered. One remembers Reagan, so hated by the left, but so effective against the communist threat. Other Presidents had been telling Americans to hide under their desks or in their basements. Reagan told the Soviets to "tear down this wall". Gearge W. Bush is no Reagan. However, he certainly isn't a John Kerry. Like Reagan, Bush understands at some level that purely defensive measures, such as ransacking tourists' pockets at the airport, are about as useless as hiding under a desk during a nuclear attack, unless they are but one part of a larger, offensive plan of defense.
Kerry articulated his idea that the job of the President is to consider international opinion. Bush articulated his belief that the job of the President is to protect Americans. Kerry talked of repairing American credibility. Bush pointed to Kerry's own lack thereof. Kerry tried to explain his shifting record. Bush did not have to explain anything, except to Kerry. The media has critiqued President Bush for being repetative during the first Presidential Debate. Yet, Kerry left him little choice. Bush must have stressed five times that the war is bigger than one lone terrorist hiding in an Afghan cave. Kerry just couldn't see it.
The world-views could not be more different. Kerry views the war in Iraq as a distraction, and the War on Terror as a small time expedition to arrest a few "criminal" murderers. He repeatedly complained of Bush not putting the entire focus of the war on Bin Laden. One thing came through loud and clear: John Kerry does not understand the global nature of the fundamentalist terror threat. He doesn't understand the ideological connections the patchwork enemy has; that it is a global threat of mutliple enemies with a common goal and motive, even where there is no direct, concrete example of co-conspiracy. And where there is concrete evidence of cooperation -- as in Iraq -- Kerry ignores it and pretends it does not exist.
The media misreporting of the debate is almost as frightening as the ideas of John Kerry. Especially since that such misreporting makes a Kerry win in the election possible.
________________
Back...
