CSotD: Taking Debate
Skip to comments
Jack Ohman is one of the first out of the blocks on last night's debate, and comes as close as anyone is likely to in summing it up: Trump boasted, Clinton watched.
I doubt that it had much impact on the convinced, but voters who have been wavering might have been driven one direction or the other.
However, talk about who "won" the debate assumes a universal measuring stick by which, for instance, repeatedly interrupting and making false assertions is a bad thing.
For some people, however, the interruptions translate as refusing to be intimidated and the assertions will never be fact-checked. (And, if fact-checks are brought forward, they are dismissed as prejudiced at best and as part of the conspiracy at its most paranoid.)
You can accept that, or you can be snide about it, but on November 8, the votes of the well-informed, the ill-informed, the analytical and the unbalanced will all count the same and it won't really matter how you feel about anyone's opinion.
What we (and Ann Telnaes) saw last night was a good representation of Hillary Clinton and a good representation of Donald Trump and the chief result is likely a hardening of loyalties rather than a shifting of choices.
As Tom Tomorrow suggests, there isn't much point in arguing the facts with True Believers, the quibble here being that it's hardly a one-sided matter.
But the facts aren't the point. The point, rather, is how the debate is perceived as an event.
It's certainly possible to do some mop-up criticism.
Whether or not she was coached quite as Bruce Plante envisions, Clinton did a pretty good job.
On the other hand, she whipped out a pair of clever names for Trump economic policies that she'd have done better to keep under wraps, since he wasn't doing a lot of name-calling himself.
However, those schoolyard insults didn't seem to have a lot of traction and probably didn't matter.
And Trump's ducking of specifics might also have mattered a great deal more in a contest to weigh the actual policies each candidate was proposing, but this wasn't that contest.
What will matter now is the narrative the media carries forward, because debates aren't about the candidates or the voters but about the direction coverage will take as a result of them.
There was a time when journalists at least attempted to be neutral in these matters; I remember being appalled when Andrea Mitchell began to pepper her stand-ups in front of the Clinton White House with snide remarks, the most memorable being to categorize the President, when he had deferred some question (probably about the pending health care reform proposals) to his wife, as "hiding behind her skirts."
This was in the pre-Internet days, before anyone outside the profession knew that Mitchell was dating the head of the Federal Reserve, which should have disqualified her for the White House beat in the first place.
Now we have a kerfuffle over Trump complaining that debate moderator Lester Holt is a registered Democrat when, in fact, he is a registered Republican.
Sigh.
In my day, boys and girls, journalists did not register with political parties.
True neutrality wasn't a practical goal, but behaving in a neutral fashion was not only a goal but a professional requirement.
John Chancelor famously did not even vote because he felt that taking a position, even privately, would tend to prejudice his judgement.
That was widely seen as striving to be more Catholic than the Pope, but belonging to a party, contributing to political causes or sporting political bumperstickers was off-limits.
Well, it was all theoretical at best, and Charles Pierce has a depressing and insightful reminder of how the far-from-neutral media drummed up and perpetuated the image of Al Gore as a pompous, condescending liar during the 2000 debates.
Which you may remember unless you are one of the thousands of young Americans who died as a result of that election.
I Laughed Because It Wasn't Funny
Can't let today's Retail go by unremarked, and it does fit the narrative about people who find it easier to demand results if they ignore the necessary details.
In my case, it was a demand that my reporters write more stories, coupled with a demand that I avoid letting them claim overtime.
Comic strips often compress time to fit things into a three- or four-panel format, and, in real life, it wouldn't have been so bad to have one half of the demand made at one point while the second part came a week later.
However, like Marla, I'd get both parts in a single meeting, and, if upper management didn't know how long it took to do interviews, take photos and write up a story, they certainly knew how long it took to drive from one town to another.
Simply stopping in the middle of town, blowing the car horn and driving on to the next must-have-coverage-every-issue hamlet would have put my reporters into overtime.
But that wasn't management's problem to solve. It was mine.
Hail and Farewell
Rina Piccolo is wrapping up her time as one of the Six Chix, and the strip will be the poorer for her absence, though her replacement is worthy.
Six Chix isn't at the top of my list, but, then, it shouldn't be, since it is purposely aimed at a female audience, and maintains a kind of "Sex And The City" consciousness that seems to include an awful lot of shoes and chocolate, as, I suppose, an antidote to Good Old Boy strips that obsess about golf.
I don't play golf, either.
(Though I do know that golf holes are marked by flags such that, when a famous golfer dies, you can draw a golf hole with the flag at half-mast. In fact, you are apparently required to.)
Anyway, Piccolo is a terrific gag cartoonist and her Wednesdays were a pleasure. I hope whatever she has coming up next-and-instead is visible, because I'll miss her at Chix.
Ah well. We'll always have Tina.
Mike Peterson has posted his "Comic Strip of the Day" column every day since 2010. His opinions are his own, but we welcome comments either agreeing or in opposition.
Comments
Comments are closed.