(This is a good piggyback off of the post below.) Instead of covering important issues like the economy it seems like the recent debate between Obama and Clinton focused more on the trivial (in comparison to the real issues that need to be talked about) events of the past few weeks . It makes me wonder about the agenda-setting power of the media, which has recently turned the spotlight on Obama's recent gaffes. With nothing else to talk about, these issues have been the main course of the recent news cycle, but why did it filter into the debate? Don't they have more important things to talk about? Shouldn't the medis be jumping on the opportunity to MAKE news by talking SUBSTANCE? So it makes me wonder, is the debate making the news or is news making the debate? The content of the debate could very well make news for the media to feed off of, but it seems like the news set the agenda for the debate. Though once a media sweetheart, this worked against Obama Wednesday night.
Though I'm sure she would have been up to the challenge, Clinton didn't have to do much work to attack Obama because the moderators were doing it for her. As a politician, Obama could have tried to transcend the issues, but the media's focus on the gaffes put him in a corner. I find these gaffes to be a less pleasant part of the contest, because I think it puts the focus on less important slips and makes people lose sight of a candidate's true worth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment