Presidential debates: TV is still bringing us together
I will be blogging the presidential debate moderated by CBS newsman Bob Schieffer tonight. And while I believed from the first encounter between Barack Obama and John McCain at the University of Mississippi that these were hugely important TV events, I am beginning to understand that even I underestimated their cultural impact.
Two things account for me feeling this heightened sense of how important the debates -- and TV -- have become in American life this year.
First, is a fast bit of data from an online poll of more than a million young adults (18 to 24 years of age) who were believed to be getting most of their political information either online or via mobile device.
Second, is the testimony of African-American scholars, educators and analysts heard while reporting a story that appears on Page 1 of the Sun today about Baltimore leading the nation in TV ratings for the first three debates.
Here's the poll data, and to me it supports my argument that the age of television is far from over.
When the young adults in this poll were asked online or via mobile device how they were watching the debates, 59 percent said they were watching in real time on TV. Another 32 percent said they were watching on TiVo or DVR.
Only 9 percent said they were not watching at all. But none said they were watching online.
The poll was conducted as a part of Shop The Vote (www.shopthevote.org), the first digital out-of-home public service campaign designed to reach 18 to 24 year old citizens before November 4 in the environments that matter to them most: in retail stores, online and on their mobile phones.
I understand all the methodological problems with such polls, but If anything, this sample should have skewed away from TV viewing.
Furthermore, the findings support what my colleague, Jill Rosen, and I found in reporting the story in today's Sun: People are coming together in groups and enjoying a deep TV experience in the best sense of the word. Yes, the age of the Internet is upon us, but we never go instantly from one media epoch to the next, and this poll supports my thesis that TV is still a bigger player than the Web in this election.
My brain is still reverberating with the words of University of Maryland Professor Sheri Parks and WBAL radio show host Clarence M. Mitchell IV, as they talked about watching these debates as witnessing "history" in the story Rosen and I wrote.
Beyond the hundreds of thousands of homes that will be tuned to the debates tonight, area residents will gather in theaters, restaurants, college unions and church halls to watch Obama and McCain -- and TV, that often dismissed and regularly dissed medium, will be at the center of all of it.
So, please stop back here for my TV take on the debate.
Last week, I focused on the body language of Obama and McCain and the way in which the latter seemed to insult a young African-American questioner in the town hall setting by suggesting the young man did not know about Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac prior to the recent economic crisis.
I am still hearing from readers and analysts about that critique. Last night, a faculty member at City College told me it was part of the morning-after debate in her class. Her words lifted my spirits sky high. But there are also those posting comments who angrily denounce such sociology and tell me I should focus on reviewing shows like Desperate Housewives.
Actually, I like Desperate Housewives, but what happen tonight with the debates, that's history. And I am going to be there.
(Above CBS photo of Bob Schieffer by John Paul Filo)
Comments
Speaking of body language, notice at the end of the debate when Barack goes to shake McCain's hand.... McCain refuses to shake his hand and instead directs him to shake Cindy's hand.... how disgraceful that a Presidential candidate cannot even be civil to a fellow American. Imagine McCain as a commander-in-chief trying to negotiate or be diplomatic with foreign officials!! Oh, that's right, McCain's going to be another righteous cowboy, abusing his executive war-time powers like Bush....
Posted by: Andrew | October 15, 2008 2:00 PM
On Monday I attending my brother in laws funeral at Ft. Sam Houston National Cemetery. He was in infantry and fought at Normandy, The Battle of the Bulge and Korea and was critically wounded in Korea. He loved his country. I saw the many, many, many crosses in this cemetery established in the 1800's and thought of the sacrifices all of these men and women made, some giving their lives so that American remained free. We are now close to electing the next president & commander in chief and if the American people elect radical communist socialist Obama, did these men and women who gave so much for their country do so in vain? If he is elected, I fear that God will disappear from our decisions and way of life. It will not affect my husband & I very much as we most likely will not be on this earth much longer because of our age, but the younger citizens will be in for "changes" that will cause them to have to explain to their children & grandchildren what democracy is really like and that once upon a time, in America, we were the land of the free and....." . Perhaps someone will write a book about democracy.
Posted by: Mary Nugget | October 15, 2008 2:00 PM
It's so true: most of the 18-24 years olds watching the debate know that history is, indeed, in the making, and so they want to witness it in the here and now.That is what television is allowing them to do as opposed to other forms of media. And television doesn't allow for distractions as the internet may with its many pop-up ads and various other distractions.
Hi, thanks for this insight into why young viewers are watching on TV and their feeling of being part of something larger. Thanks. Z
Posted by: J. Idokogi | October 15, 2008 2:09 PM
If McCain is going to BUDGE the polls, he's going to have to learn that dropping ONE glove (Palin) isn't going to cut it - the good cop/bad cop routine doesn't work in a political campaign! You can't be a "nice guy" in a knife fight!
Free advice to John:
1) Learn to use "THAT MEANS…" Don't just say "I tried to prevent the Fannie/Freddie debacle", tell HOW the whistle was blown and the red flag raised... and name names of those who resisted! Respond to Obama's charges with facts, like "Tax cuts don't reduce revenues... they INCREASE them every time they're tried". Point out that corporations don't pay taxes... they pass the costs on to their customers or they cut costs by laying off workers. Either way, taxing corporations hurts FAMILIES. Talk about removing tax barriers to REPATRIATING offshore operations.
2) Mudslinging may be distasteful, but it WORKS. TALK about why Obama's economic policy is a disaster. Talk about ALL his associations* and the PATTERN they depict. (Don't get bogged down in the specifics of Ayers or Wright... give the totality of associations and let the CLOUD swirl around him!) Talk about ACORN. Talk about his WORLD VIEW. When asked about your own policies - give a CONCISE answer and end on a CONTRAST with "that one". Never let an answer end without a hit on Obama... keep him on the defensive!
3) DISTILL the World View difference down to brass tacks:
Obama World View: America is a greedy evil which must be restrained. Government is the answer to the problems of the downtrodden. Taxation's purpose is to redistribute wealth and to manipulate behavior.
McCain World View: America is a powerful force for GOOD in the world and the people can accomplish great things if they are UNCHAINED. Americans are the most charitable people on the face of the earth and don't need Government to decide where to distribute their charity for them. Taxation is a necessary evil to generate revenues for the appropriate business of Government, which is constitutionally limited.
*http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1445/pub_detail.asp
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 2:18 PM
Unfortunately, the debate tonight is going to be a rehash of the previous debates. What do I mean? There are going to be the same questions that have been asked during the course of the campaign, but re-phrased to sound
like something new, or asking something specific. But the candidates cannot be more specific because they may alienate a segment of voters. Broad answers are better for them because they can be receptive to wider audiences and that can translate into
more votes.
I am going to watch the debate tonight, but I expect to get the same wine as the last debate, but served in a different bottle. And with the news
breaking today that Bush had approved "water-boarding" torture of Muslim suspects, I want to open an
international bottle of wine and serve
the presidential candidates one glass
(one question) each.
Glass 1) Why the U.S. has not signed "The Protocol of Civil and Political Rights," under the U.N. Human Rights Commission? Most countries have, and since we produce every year a list of Human Rights abusing regimes, and call them outlaws, why don't we practice what we teach? How does our Guantanamo practices compare to those of the outlaw regimes?
Glass 2) Why does George Bush insists that the International Criminal Court(ICC) issue a warrant for the arrest of Sudan's president Omar Bashir for crimes against humanity in Darfur? The U.S. has not signed the ICC treaty, nor is a member of that court, nor recognizes its jurisdiction.
That keeps the ICC from investigating the unnecessary killing of civilians in both Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan whose numbers are more than tenfold from Darfur's. How does it plays internationally when we don't allow the ICC rules to apply to us, but we push the court to prosecute others for doing the same things we prefer to do with impunity!
Regardless of who gets to answer each question, both candidates must state their position on each.
That wine may not taste good for the candidates, but since each candidate
brags that ours is a great country, let
them tell the international audiences where do they stand on the aforesaid issues. A great country doesn't hide under the table when issues of human rights and war crimes come to vote on
the table of international conferences
and organizations.
Nikos Retsos, retired Pol. Sci. and History professor
Posted by: Nikos Retsos | October 15, 2008 2:35 PM
MILITARY RECORD
When two U.S. Army enlisted men were captured by the Viet Cong in 1963, they were plunged into an ordeal that would prove to be a relentless trial of body and spirit by torture. Once they were finally freed, however, their trials began all over again, when their statements critical of the U. S. Vietnam policy landed them in a military court facing a capital offense for violating the military Code of Conduct by "aiding the enemy."
But, if your name is John McCain and your father and grandfather were famous admirals, violating the Code of Conduct by "aiding the enemy" translates into fodder for a political career, book deals, and adulation bordering on sainthood.
Even though news reports of McCain for collaborating with the enemy continued from the time he was captured in 1967 through 1970, the Navy never considered prosecution as an option.
Instead, Pentagon pencil pushers chose a political spin that lifted McCain, the former POW turned U.S. Senator, up to a glorified pedestal where he sprouted a halo and wings and became America's "POW-hero" and today a presidential candidate.
No such luck for the two lowly "grunts."
http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.htm
VETS ON McSHAME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MUY9S6iCvk
At Fort McNair, an army base located along the Potomac River in the nation's capital, a chance reunion takes place one day between two former POWs. Walking along the grounds at Fort McNair, McCain runs into John Dramesi, an Air Force lieutenant colonel who was also imprisoned and tortured in Vietnam.
There's a distance between the two men that belies their shared experience in North Vietnam — call it an honor gap. Like many American POWs, McCain broke down under torture and offered a "confession" to his North Vietnamese captors. Dramesi, in contrast, attempted two daring escapes. For the second he was brutalized for a month with daily torture sessions that nearly killed him. His partner in the escape, Lt. Col. Ed Atterberry, didn't survive the mistreatment. But Dramesi never said a disloyal word, and for his heroism was awarded two Air Force Crosses, one of the service's highest distinctions. McCain would later hail him as "one of the toughest guys I've ever met."
On the grounds between the two brick colleges, the chitchat between the scion of four-star admirals and the son of a prizefighter turns to their academic travels; both colleges sponsor a trip abroad for young officers to network with military and political leaders in a distant corner of the globe.
"I'm going to the Middle East," Dramesi says. "Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran."
"Why are you going to the Middle East?" McCain asks, dismissively. "It's a place we're probably going to have some problems," Dramesi says.
"Why? Where are you going to, John?" "Oh, I'm going to Rio."
"What the hell are you going to Rio for?" McCain, a married father of three, shrugs. "I got a better chance of getting laid."
Dramesi, who went on to serve as chief war planner for U.S. Air Forces in Europe and commander of a wing of the Strategic Air Command, was not surprised. "McCain says his life changed while he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man," Dramesi says today. "But he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."
"Let's face it," says Larry Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. "John McCain made his reputation on the fact that he doesn't bend his principles for politics. That's just not true.
"John has made a pact with the devil," says Lincoln Chafee, the former GOP senator, who has been appalled at his one-time colleague's readiness to sacrifice principle for power.
Posted by: basementfrog | October 15, 2008 3:00 PM
The problem with your poll data is obvious. They only poll land-line telephones. It's highly possible that people watching the debates as streaming video online (like myself) have done away with the need for land-lines. I have a fax line, but why answer it?
hello Jack, It is not obvious at all. As I said, they polled online and via mobile devices. They did NO landline polling. Dids you read it? Maybe it is my fault -- maybe it was not clear enough. But the poll was all online or mobile device. Thanks. Z
Posted by: Jack | October 15, 2008 3:10 PM
I believe that if you were born in the US, you should have the right to vote, if you do not have any felonies. I also believe that if you were not born here, you should not have the right to vote unless you have graduated high school and can speak english.
Posted by: Linda Robertson | October 15, 2008 3:11 PM
To conclude that these events are historic, is not entirely accurate. We monitored the primary debates very carefully this election cycle, as well as the one previous. These "historic events", are the most artfully crafted pieces of propaganda ever created.
It is actually a sad state of affairs that as you stated "these were hugely important TV events, I am beginning to understand that even I underestimated their cultural impact."
If the concept of your article is that TV plays a major role in the election process you are correct.
TV was instrumental in preventing Ron Paul from receiving the notoriety he deserved by constantly labeling him as an oddball who was misinformed. You know Ron Paul, the man who said that the current financial debacle was at hand, while the rest of the candidates lauded a resilient economy that supposedly would not need a bailout from the pockets of the taxpayers.
If the concept of your article is that Barack Obama is an African-American then we are truly in very deep trouble.
Bigotry comes in many forms, and it is apparently ingrained in far too many people. Those people might ask themselves why it is that the major media plays so heavily on the fact that Obama disavows his allegiance to the country by continually playing the African-American card as if it holds some sort of connotation other than that he is not a true American. Racism is deeply ingrained in many people, and they are typically the first ones to shout racism.
Yes TV is out there, but it is not bringing us together. Through its talking heads it continues to spout out the incessant nonsense needed to keep the American people from learning the true nature of our electoral process and thereby robbing them of ever having legitimate elections that might at some point save this country from the abyss upon which we now stand.
I do know about Ron Paul and have written about his success on the Internet. But are you arguing that these are not historic debates because Paul is not included? I think that is a very narrow view. In a literal sense, they are historic because the VP debate was the most watched in history (for VP debates). And I do not think you are allowing yourself to see them through the eyes of viewers from other demographic groups. Thanks. Z
Posted by: PatriotG | October 15, 2008 3:41 PM
Well although it looks grim today for McCain... I still support him. Obama is not the answer!
Posted by: Andrew | October 15, 2008 3:49 PM
My stomach turned and my heart sank when I read the "suggestions" from J Idokogi for McCain. Perhaps Obama then should bring back the discussion of family values -- remember that Republican mainstay -- and ask about the first Mrs. McCain. John McCain is disgraceful for having left a woman he promised God to stay with for life because she was no longer pretty enough. Even Nancy Reagan condemned him for that.
Hi, thanks for the comment. Just to clarify. The comments to which you refer are from someone identified only as "anonymous." The comments from J Idokogi were about 18 to 24 years olds wanting to witness history by watching the debates. It is easy to get confused because of the way they are stacked on the page. I get confused, too. Thanks. Z
Posted by: SJohnson | October 15, 2008 3:52 PM
"But are you arguing that these are notr historic debates because Paul is not included? I think tat is a very narrow view."
RESPONSE:
No, I make mention of Ron Paul because as manipulated as the republican debates were, the current circus is just the same.
If your conclusion is that more people have watched since the last election, I agree. There are also considerably more people of age, and more people who are suffering in the current climate and looking for any answer.
TV is simply a tool by which those in charge present their propaganda, which allows for the non-election of the Chief Magistrate. You might want to read the 12th Amendment, which is blueprint for how the Electoral College is supposed to run, as opposed to what we see today. Note that this Amendment was not repealed by subsequent amendments, which in essence makes the later void.
Hi, thanks for the reply. But if TV is just a "tool" for propaganda from the powers that be, how do you explain TV news coverage of the civil rights marches in the 1960s? Do you think those "in charge" wanted that shown? Thanks. Z
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 4:14 PM
The guy giving debate advice to mccain is halarious, whose more desperate, the guy thinking mccain would actually be on this website hours before the debate still looking for what he should say, thinking "jeez i wish someone would post some advice for tonights debate...".....or Mccain, if he actually needed to go online to find a strategy from some random person. Either way shows how desperate the right has become for victory.
Posted by: sam | October 15, 2008 4:58 PM
To be honest, I haven't really been paying attention to this, considerably very long election. But I am rather interested to see McCain do more goof-ups in this one. I would really like to hear your insight on that.
I was actually going to vote for John McCain, till I saw him on the debate, and I saw Sarah Palin. I guess I might be a prime example about how televised debates can really affect a person's vote.
Posted by: Alex | October 15, 2008 7:11 PM
In 2006, Obama campaigned for a relative in Kenya, who was running for the Presidency. Obama's cousins name is Raila Odinga. Subsequently, Odinga lost by 230,000 or so votes. He did not accept the loss. So he called for demonstrations by his political supporters who in turn committed ethnic cleansing and genocide. Point blank, this guy tried to subvert the election process and use blackmail until he got what he wanted. Here is a video that gives a good accounting of the events along with photo's as proof of Obama and Odinga campaigning together. And Obama, used U.S. taxpayer money for this and his Senatorial position to help this terrorist. Titled: Barack Obama & Raila Odinga - Link: - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QcpdUtxNQ&feature=related
Posted by: TripleX | October 15, 2008 7:55 PM
Will Schieffer be brave (non-partisan) enough to ask Obama about the latest anti-Semitic remarks of his supporter Jesse Jackson?
Jackson, as was widely reported, said in France that “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” will lose influence under an Obama administration.
Wonder, too, how those remarks (and Rev. Wright's anti-Semitic remarks) are playing in South Florida.
With friends like those "reverends," Obama doesn't need enemies.
Posted by: Gerald | October 15, 2008 10:14 PM