Post-Election Blues...
Okay, so I've lost all faith in humanity. I cannot understand why ANYONE would vote for Bush. Maybe I really am the radical lefty that everyone says I am. I always really thought of myself as a moderate. Now I'm a political outcast because I didn't vote for the Shrub.
One of our school projects was to write a paper on media coverage either during or post-election. So without further delay...
Indecision 2004: Election Night Assignment
Okay...the day after
Like millions of voters, I waited anxiously for polling returns on election night. Despite an important school assignment, I avoided the pundits on the radio and TV like the plague, relying strictly on the internet for my results. Pulling up my trusty C-SPAN.ORG map, I hit the "refresh" button a record number of times as I watched the precincts report in. I put on a pot of coffee, expecting a long night. It wasn't until after the election that I felt I was ready to subject myself to the political commentary.
Hannity & Colmes
My bleeding liberal heart weeps at the thought of watching the "Fair and Balanced" Fox News. By sheer willpower alone, I flipped through the news channels and finally settled on Hannity & Colmes. The majority of the analysis focused on the cultural aspect of the election. Hannity characterized the Democratic party as whole-heartedly embracing the extreme liberal left. I tried to keep track of the number of times Hannity referred to the Democratic party as the "party of Michael Moore," but I lost count. He reinforced the stereotypical idea that there was a "total package" associated with Kerry that included Moore, Whoopi, Theresa, Edwards and rock stars in general. He, along with his conservative guests, contrasted that Hollywood image with the "regular guy" image of President Bush. I found that an interesting comparison especially after watching Jon Stewart's interview with Senator Charles Schumer who claimed that the Democratic party was the party of the average American despite election results.
Several key issues were reiterated by Hannity and the conservative guests. Gay marriage was at the top of the list. The issue was repeated over and over again as possibly the deciding factor of the election. This set the stage for Colmes' interview with Pat Robertson, who said that the voters put morals at the top of the ballot. He reminisced about the good old days when democrats were more conservative, stating that the Democratic party had rejected traditional values, the values of the South. Colmes questioned Robertson, asking him that if the moral issues revolving around the election were key to Bush's victory, why hadn't he won the presidency in '88. Robertson referred to himself as a John the Baptist figure who paved the way for a president like Bush, a man of faith. The Messianic comparison was unmistakable. For those faithful Pat Robertson viewers, that is a powerful statement indeed. Robertson even borrowed a familiar catchphrase, saying that in '88, he was the wrong man, at the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Hannity, on cue, echoed Robertson; Bush was the right man, at the right place, at the right time. This, in contrast with Kerry's "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" message, seemed to create the perception of negativity on Kerry's side. Kerry was further characterized by Dick Morris who, throughout the interview, parroted the "way out of the mainstream" image. His repeated observation during his interview with Hannity was that the democrats would have won the election if they hadn't selected the most liberal member of the Senate. The Democratic party had abandoned "mainstream America" in favor of the liberal extreme.
To say that the piece reflected a fairly conservative message would be an understatement. I found familiar themes in the commentary that have been repeated throughout the election by the conservative side of the media.
I wasn’t expecting a “Fair and Balanced” viewpoint from Fox, but I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. I tried to dispel my own preconceptions of what I perceive as the Right-Wing portion of the media, but there are some pretty unbalanced statements and comparisons that are obvious to me. I observed a pretty large margin between the conservative versus liberal time allotted to the two hosts.
Despite all of Hannity’s off hand remarks emphasizing the “liberal hatred of Bush” and the lack of presence from the liberal Colmes, I still found the piece enlightening. It challenged me to be a little more critical of my own party and their approach to the election. Both sides made valid points, and their analysis of the results seemed plausible, though the presentation makes me as the viewer question the tactics used to present certain information.
One of our school projects was to write a paper on media coverage either during or post-election. So without further delay...
Indecision 2004: Election Night Assignment
Okay...the day after
Like millions of voters, I waited anxiously for polling returns on election night. Despite an important school assignment, I avoided the pundits on the radio and TV like the plague, relying strictly on the internet for my results. Pulling up my trusty C-SPAN.ORG map, I hit the "refresh" button a record number of times as I watched the precincts report in. I put on a pot of coffee, expecting a long night. It wasn't until after the election that I felt I was ready to subject myself to the political commentary.
Hannity & Colmes
My bleeding liberal heart weeps at the thought of watching the "Fair and Balanced" Fox News. By sheer willpower alone, I flipped through the news channels and finally settled on Hannity & Colmes. The majority of the analysis focused on the cultural aspect of the election. Hannity characterized the Democratic party as whole-heartedly embracing the extreme liberal left. I tried to keep track of the number of times Hannity referred to the Democratic party as the "party of Michael Moore," but I lost count. He reinforced the stereotypical idea that there was a "total package" associated with Kerry that included Moore, Whoopi, Theresa, Edwards and rock stars in general. He, along with his conservative guests, contrasted that Hollywood image with the "regular guy" image of President Bush. I found that an interesting comparison especially after watching Jon Stewart's interview with Senator Charles Schumer who claimed that the Democratic party was the party of the average American despite election results.
Several key issues were reiterated by Hannity and the conservative guests. Gay marriage was at the top of the list. The issue was repeated over and over again as possibly the deciding factor of the election. This set the stage for Colmes' interview with Pat Robertson, who said that the voters put morals at the top of the ballot. He reminisced about the good old days when democrats were more conservative, stating that the Democratic party had rejected traditional values, the values of the South. Colmes questioned Robertson, asking him that if the moral issues revolving around the election were key to Bush's victory, why hadn't he won the presidency in '88. Robertson referred to himself as a John the Baptist figure who paved the way for a president like Bush, a man of faith. The Messianic comparison was unmistakable. For those faithful Pat Robertson viewers, that is a powerful statement indeed. Robertson even borrowed a familiar catchphrase, saying that in '88, he was the wrong man, at the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Hannity, on cue, echoed Robertson; Bush was the right man, at the right place, at the right time. This, in contrast with Kerry's "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" message, seemed to create the perception of negativity on Kerry's side. Kerry was further characterized by Dick Morris who, throughout the interview, parroted the "way out of the mainstream" image. His repeated observation during his interview with Hannity was that the democrats would have won the election if they hadn't selected the most liberal member of the Senate. The Democratic party had abandoned "mainstream America" in favor of the liberal extreme.
To say that the piece reflected a fairly conservative message would be an understatement. I found familiar themes in the commentary that have been repeated throughout the election by the conservative side of the media.
I wasn’t expecting a “Fair and Balanced” viewpoint from Fox, but I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. I tried to dispel my own preconceptions of what I perceive as the Right-Wing portion of the media, but there are some pretty unbalanced statements and comparisons that are obvious to me. I observed a pretty large margin between the conservative versus liberal time allotted to the two hosts.
Despite all of Hannity’s off hand remarks emphasizing the “liberal hatred of Bush” and the lack of presence from the liberal Colmes, I still found the piece enlightening. It challenged me to be a little more critical of my own party and their approach to the election. Both sides made valid points, and their analysis of the results seemed plausible, though the presentation makes me as the viewer question the tactics used to present certain information.
posted by Liz at 10:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home