Rush is Right

Well... not about much
Rush Limbaugh got plenty of attention in the last few weeks for criticizing President Obama as well as more moderate members of the Republican Party. While I agree with the general reaction that he is ultimately a drain on the Party (and I hope the moderates he finds so traitorous are able to reshape the Republican Party so that we can have serious debate about policy in Washington)I do agree with one message that Limbaugh has been spouting, that of the “drive by media”. Limbaugh uses this term to dismiss critics of his political views as well as his tactics, but that doesn’t mean he is wrong in affixing the label to the talking heads. The current dustup between Jon Stewart and CNBC illustrates the need we have for more serious journalism on TV.

Jon Stewart appears to have ignited some soul searching among journalistic circles, while many refuse to accept that there is a problem outside of business news. On Huffington Post the idea of Stewart interviewing Cheney on a Sunday news show is examined (I like the idea). Why does it take a comedian to ask tough questions? Jon Stewart has credibility with in certain demographics (including my house), but surely there is someone outside of late night comedy that is willing to be hold politicians accountable. That would bring ratings, wouldn't it?

Why is cable news coverage so superficial? Upon first glance the format would seem to lend itself to in depth coverage (it can’t be easy to fill a whole day of coverage after all). After a Presidential speech or candidate debate one of the first aspects discussed by the panel of “experts” is “How will the American People respond?” Hello, we ARE the American people! Why are you spending time discussing how we are feeling about what we just watched? Why are you discussing whether it was a good speech? Can’t we decide whether we liked the speech and how we feel about it? After the President gives a speech on changing stem cell policy in the U.S. for example, why not have someone… I don’t know… who works in stem cell research explain what it will change and how THEY feel about it? What does reading poll numbers possibly add to the debate? Not a thing. It seems highly unlikely that someone is going to change their mind about the ethical quandaries raised because some chunk of the population thinks its ok.

Another bugaboo in the media is this insistence on keeping coverage “fair”. Global warming is an issue that is complex and has multiple facets that need to be addressed. When convening a panel to discuss the issues it seems logical to have multiple points of view so as to cover say the technology that might be used to slow or even reverse warming trends as well as the likely impacts to be seen in parts of the world. Why is there a need to always bring in some blowhard whose sole contribution seems to be standing with his eyes closed, fingers in ear shouting “la la la la, I’m not listening. I don’t see or hear anything about global warming there for it can’t be real. It just snowed in Mexico problem solved”? Much to my chagrin they are usually economists.

Recently former officials from the previous administration are popping up to give us their opinion on what's going on (and why it isn't their fault). I know I am dying to hear Karl Rove's view on President Obama running a budget deficit and why they are worse than the deficits that existed under former President Bush. "After all we were fighting two wars." I guess I missed the memo that one of them has ended. Apparently Karl missed the memo about one of the wars being a war of choice and a boondoggle to to end all boondoggles. Again I am waiting for someone to have the fore sight to be ready to ask Rove and his ilk about that as Jon Stewart, no doubt, would. News anchors can continue to put down the work of late night comics but I think its high time they took a cue or two from them.

Rant Over.