This evening CNN, in a wanton attempt to feel a part of the Personal Expression Age’s current social media craze, was posting madly on it’s Facebook Page during the 2012 Presidential Debate. One such post — besides the most inane of them all, “Who do you think won tonight’s debate?” as if it were a local rugby match — read, “What struck you the most about tonight’s debate? Explain in the comments below and tune in now for CNN’s post-debate show featuring Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and John King. We will use some of your responses during our broadcast.”
The problem of course is that this evening’s post-debate coverage didn’t just include the aforementioned Wolf, Anderson and King. As is customary in today’s cable news as soap opera styled journalism, they had a full figured round table stuffed to the brim with former White House staffers, campaign consultants, Press Secretaries and speech writers. Each and every one either leaning hard left or right, and not a one able to see past the nose on their face, let alone the source of the dollars in their bank accounts. Whether it’s Ari Fliescher (Republican), David Gergen (Republican), Alex Castellano (Reublican), or a Paul Begala (Democrat), their stated job is to commentate on what the average American just witnessed not two minutes prior. As if the viewers themselves are somehow unable to make up their own minds on what they just watched. This wouldn’t be so bad if the commentating was being conducted by objective journalists whose duties were limited to deconstruction and reduction to make subtle points more palatable and accessible.
But that’s not how it works anymore. Even CNN, at one time a rather tame and objective third party cable news network, has given in to the trend of featuring an equal number of cheer leaders of one or the other political parties in American politics….
“What strikes many of us the most about tonight’s debate is the after-debate coverage on CNN (and other networks) that features and in fact is dominated by paid political consultants of either the Democratic or Republican party; these people offer nothing objective, newsworthy or interesting to the conversation. Instead they step up to the mic to repeat the same rhetoric they are paid to say and find a way to spin every answer into an advertisement for their candidate and the political party they represent. It’s just not journalism. I believe that a lot of people would sincerely appreciate if you stopped this trend and went back to solid objective journalism.”