How did we get to the absurd place where the media are so obsessed with providing both sides of an argument, supposedly to avoid bias, but actually just ignoring fact or reason? It results in some rediculously absurd false equivalences.
Kentucky's senate race is arguably the most important one this election, because it will decide the fate of senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, challenged by Allison Grimes. And yet in picking the top story for each candidate, one was trivial and overblown, the other of major substance but downplayed.
1. Grimes refused to say whether she voted for Barack Obama.
2. McConnell gave a "word salad" of an answer to whether he supports Kentucky's successful health care insurance exchange KyNect, given that he vows to get rid of Obamacare, "root and branch." And KyNect is very definitely a branch of the ACA, with a large number of its users getting federal subsidies for their health plans. McConnell said it is "just a web site," which they can keep if they want to pay for it.
So the media treat theses two things as comparable negatives from the debate. The one about Grimes probably got more air time, with a major discussion between Chris Hayes and Chuck Todd as to whether she is too scripted.
That is absurd. Of course everyone knows Grimes voted for Obama, as almost all Democrats did. They just want to force her to say it on tv, so McConnell can use the sound bite in an ad denouncing her as a tool for the unpopular Obama (unpopular in Kentucky, that is).
And they equate Grimes' minor skirmish over a sound bite with McConnell's vow to get rid of Obamacare -- which would destroy the popular KyNect as well, unless the state agreed to pay all those subsidies itself. That should be of major concern to Kentucky voters; who Grimes voted for in 2012 is inconsequential.
How can the electorate be "well-informed" when we are so poorly served by the media?
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment