Here’s the confession: I love presidential election years, and this one is getting more compelling by the day. Both of my kids, 8 and 10, can name all the major candidates on sight, and last night a wide ranging discussion among the four of us about Mike Huckabee included a stop at Wikipedia to get our facts straight on the roots of the Islamic religion. (Try connecting those dots.) We taped the two debates from New Hampshire the other night and have been watching them in 5 or 10 minute chunks (they are 8 and 10 after all…) and we’ve spent a good amount of time using politics as a jumping off point for some larger Q & A sessions. Tonight, we’re going to place our bets on what happens in New Hampshire tomorrow. (Tucker, btw, wants Hillary to win since he wants “a girl president.” Hey…it’s a start.)
Here’s the complaint: So much of the media coverage both in print and on television is utter pablum. I just hate the spin and insipid interpretation of events and history. (Sounds like what many might feel about my blogging here…) And here is the perfect example: In today’s New York Times, in the story about Hillary’s emotional response to a question during a New Hampshire coffee klatsch, the reporter compared her “not crying” moment to Ed Muskie’s breakdown in 1974. (Video here, along with more insipid CNN commentary.)
If it was not an Ed Muskie moment — Mrs. Clinton did not cry (or
look like she was crying) — she was certainly on the verge of it after
a woman asked her, at a round table discussion at a coffee shop here,
how she managed to get out of bed and soldier through each day.“How do you do it?” the woman, Marianne Pernold, asked. And, with a touch of humor, she added, “Who does your hair?”
ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!
Ok, she had a moment. And yeah, it might say something about her ability to cope in the face of a nuclear attack (though the campaign trail may make that seem like small potatoes.) But what kills me is that there are huge issues that are not going to get air time on the evening news tonight (any bets on how many will lead with this story?) because one of the candidates’ eyes welled up after getting like seven hours of sleep in the last month and eating pizza non stop. “Hillary on the Ropes!” “Hillary Buckles Under the Pressure!”
Here’s the plan: We’re not going to rear passive political patsies. No sir. Did I mention we have TIVO? Godsend in these situations. Someone on TV says something that raises an eyebrow, we just stop the feed and deconstruct it. And we’re going to YouTube and the other raw video sites to watch the unedited, uncommentedupon versions. And we’re breaking down the videos that the candidate’s offer, like this one from Barack and this one from Huckabee. And so on and so on…
We’ve got this mountain of information at our fingertips now. If this isn’t a great moment to teach kids how to really us it well, not sure what is.
Technorati Tags: politics, media, education, learning
Powered by ScribeFire.
25 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I couldn’t agree more.
What really gets under my skin is how the different media genre’s tend to pull for different candidates. All over the NEWS tonight… “Poor Hillary”, “she really cares”, after which they interviewed only voters that are in her camp.
The whole 2 party politic thing is kinda creepy to me.
It is definitely a great moment to use the tools at our fingertips to find out the truth.
My children (11 and 13) too can name all the candidates, watched the NH debates, and even formulated questions to post on facebook. It has been great dinner conversation! If only all parents used this stuff as teachable moments. My gut feeling on the Hillary emotional response was that it was fake–even after seeing it numerous (and I mean numerous) times.
We do the same thing. The kids watch The Daily Show with us as well as the news and we talk politics, etc. all the time. Tivo is the best for being able to dissect and analyze a conversation. It makes yelling at the tv a lot more fun.
What a great lesson. As a parent I am ashamed I don’t do that. No Tivo but I do have a Dish DVR. We do have lots of conversations and use the web for research.
DH is a two party person and makes it a point to state how he is always behind his Republican party. Of course, I am Independent and explain my viewpoint of why.
I really wish more classes in my school would do this. I know the kids would have some interesting discussions. Oh.. forgot… you tube is blocked for us!
Gotta agree here. I find this the most compelling presidential race in awhile. I can see many real changes taking effect if Obama gets in if for no other reason than he wants to prove a black man can be an affective leader in the highest office in the USA. The republicans have the same plastic candidates as always. While I like what Huckabee has to say, mostly, I still am not feeling like there will be a change in how we do things on the national level.
Don’t kid yourself Scott. If Obama gets elected he will have to tow the same party line and cater to all the same special interest groups as any other Democrat would. Until a leader is elected OUTSIDE of the two party system, there will never be true change.
I agree that the media guides most Americans opinions as to who the canidates really are. They have the ability to influence anyone who does not care to do their research. I remember when I was younger I would vote for the most popular name. That’s scary. I listen to why people vote for their canidate, and the reasons are silly. Voting for someone because they are white, black, Mormon, Christian, male, female, rich, poor, etc. is not the way to vote. BE SMART, do your own research, get the facts,Pray, then vote.
P.s. I like the HONESTY in HUCKABEE.
My TIVO substitute for clips of media spin on the campaign is the excellent political video blog, Crooks and Liars.
Granted, they deconstruct the spin for their readers, but it’s always possible to watch first (maybe, though the post titles would be hard to ignore), but for tireless, exhaustive, up-to-the-minute archiving of the horse-race coverage, I haven’t found a site that beats them.
Media Matters for America and Nielson Watchdogs are also good.
Will, it’s good to see you connecting the causal dots between our political engagement (or lack thereof) as educators, and our daily realities in the schoolbox.
Here’s to pushing the envelope for more democracy in action.
Thanks for brining this up. I think this is probably the first election (I’m 27) in which I plan to really do my research before I vote.
I am quite upset by the smear campaigns that we are subjected to. This morning I received an e-mail stating that Obama was a radical muslim and would detroy the US from the inside out. Of course it came with the definitive claim that Snopes backed it up… it didn’t. Yet my friends believed the e-mail to be the absolute truth.
As educators work to promote research skills in our classrooms, who is working to promote research skills in our adults?
I, too, LOVE an election year! During the Bush/Clinton election of ‘92 I was in elementary school and I remember watching the debates with both of my parents (mom a loyal liberal, dad a stout conservative) and having the most interesting discussions. I took my elementary school’s mock election VERY seriously, and I remember my mom telling me I could vote for whoever I wanted, but that I needed to be able to explain my vote. (I was one of the precious few 4th graders in small-town Texas that had something positive to say about the democratic candidate.) It’s a fantastic thing you’re doing for your kids to promote the responsibility of citizenship and hooking them into beauty of democracy.
[…] This post on Weblogg-ed reminded me about the great opportunity that comes with an election season to have some candid conversation with your kids, not only about politics but about character and ethics. What a meaningful conversation starter about citizenship and the value of community, I bet you’ll be surprised with some of the great things your kids have to contribute. Thanks to Will for the reminder and props to him for giving his kids the tools and information to make their own decisions. […]
Yes, a great opportunity not only to learn more about the candidates, but more about how the media works, and how to try to sort out the facts from the dross. Kudos for bringing your kids in on this complicated discussion.
Will,
I’m with you. That’s why I’m trying to do the “Digital Democracy - High-tech Activities and Policies Essential for Modern Citizenship” presentation you saw in Rochester in more venues. (http://stager.org/2000workshops.html)
I can’t get enough of poltics, even the stupid coverage. However, it does break my heart that I can’t get any of my adult kids to use my ticket to see Tony Blair speak while I’m out of town.
Incidentally, I got in trouble for watching the Senate Confirmation Hearings for Supreme Court Justice with my 4th grade class.
All the best,
Gary
Anyone the slightest bit interested in modern American politics MUST MUST MUST read this book - http://tinyurl.com/2kha3f
If it weren’t true, it would be great literature.
The book also connects all of the major players and follows the money in the two parties.
Check out this commentary - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-woodruff/damned-if-she-does_b_80596.html
What a cool post!
I talk to my kids about everything, too. And we discuss things even when they are tough topics for 7 and 5 yr. old kids. My daughter is also rooting for Hillary. She says a smart girl would make a better president because she probably would fight less. Hmmmm.
I think you bring up a great point about the mountain of information. The most important 21st century skill is information management. How do you sift and judge? Do you need to remember everything, or just be able to know where and how to find it? Are there any “bad” sources or do you learn from the bad ones even if it is just what NOT to do or say? And finding relevant, accurate information in non-traditional sources, such as YouTube and Wikipedia (both terribly feared and misunderstood by so many teachers) is a good skill, too.
I cannot comment on the superficiality of the mainstream media because I only listen to NPR and don’t watch TV. I’d rather read what people are saying, blog-hopping and linking on my own.
But, Dan, it would be so much fun to watch. Society, congress, media, …. They would have to create new angles because every negative thing they would say would have to be uber-tested for political correctness.
But I do agree on the third party deal. How will it occur without some massive shift in the electoral process, though?
This morning all the spin is that one moment is why she won….! So, it continues…
The irony is that even though the pundits evidently blew it in terms of the Iowa and New Hampshire predictions, they still continue to sit there and spew predictions!
On a lighter note, it was fun to hear my teenage son say about Huckabee–”We started the Chuck Norris trend a long time ago on our discussion boards.’ Feeling like he participated in creating that parody gave him more ownership watching the campaigns…and to his online community, it’s already passe!
Now what is driving me crazy is all the analysis on how Hilary’s “emotional response” ended up winning the primary! Just hours before they were talking about how she might as well give up with that show of “weakness”. Now they speak as experts who saw her crafty move!
The media coverage is just plain ridiculous and watching it from overseas where I am separated from the constant bombardment that you get in the US (which I am shocked by everytime I’m home), I really see how issues are overlooked and how the American public is disserviced.
Does the media believe that the American public is simply not smart enough to understand the issues? Do they believe we don’t care? I don’t get it. They have the power to serve us, but instead they belittle and “dis-serve” us.
Sadly, I will continue to look to Jon Stewart for my election knowledge and to someone to hold the media accountable. As he would be the first to say, when I am looking to a Comedy Show for my news, that isn’t saying much about the news agencies.
It was calculated, but it was real. In the end, though, what does it matter?
I think the real issue here is that whether or not Hillary really did have a emotional moment is that we, the voters, immediately question her sincerity.
To respond to a commentor who mentioned the pundits getting it wrong, I can only say that it was probably because of the pundits that the winners won.
If you’re rooting for Barack Obama, and you hear on the news that he enjoys a eight-point lead in virtually all the polls, and there’s talk of a ballot shortage, you are nowhere near as galvanized as a Clinton supporter embarassed by a third-place showing in Iowa.
You can’t spell pundits without stupid.
You’re right. There are huge issues going ignored because it’s easier for journalists to discuss polls or some embarrassing moment captured on TV and make political theater. Of course, the media should be educating the public on policies, but that’s a harder sell in the You Tube Age. Also, the media have broken into partisan camps simply because there are so many news outlets today. It wasn’t possible 25 or 30 years ago to avoid the other side’s opinion. But today I can selectively expose myself to all the like-minded blogs, Web sites and news channels I want. Ironically, the more information I have access to the more uninformed I can remain. The challenge to any parent or teacher is to get students to understand the new dynamics of media as they affect politics and to seek the truth, not the spin.
I wouldn’t go that far, Mr. Gary.
There were plenty of partisan newspapers in the early, mid- and late 1800s. Partisan slants are only new to television news.
That’s why I said “the media” have broken into partisan camps, which today includes a great many more outlets than newspapers.
I don’t want to distract from the point of the discussion, but the aggregate of the traditional media — television, newspapers, magazines — hasn’t exploded all that much. Alternate publications have declined sharply, as has anything in print.
The explosion of television makes up for that.
As Ron Paul can attest in terms of electoral success, the Internet hasn’t quite grown up to be all that much of a mover and shaker in terms of practical effect on the real world.
A hotshot blogger more of a nobody outside his ill-kempt studio apartment than Lou Dobbs or Phil Krugman outside their high-rise.
[…] Richardson’s Weblogg-ed post on the Curriculum of Politics (which busts into a conversation on media […]