Thursday, October 04, 2012

Listening to the buzz.... the media today about the debate last night. I've heard a variety of things, and the consensus seems to be that Obama was definitely off, or tired, or distracted, or whatever. Lots of observations about Jim Lehrer in his role, as well - sadly, all of it negative.

 Observing the observers and listening to those who repackage for consumption the national storylines, I feel a surreal sense of  distance. Like I'm in the back row of a theater watching events unfold on a big screen. I can't shake the sense that it's a production, and I mean all of it. The two major candidates, the campaigns, the debates, the conventions, and the Presidential election itself. A redundant, ridiculous charade playing out every few years, with the hapless audience wrongly believing they're part of the production. When in reality, the script was written and individual roles cast some time back.

I want to take it seriously, I really do. But then this feeling surfaces, and I sense that I'm just watching the mother of all "reality" shows. But what is real is that these candidates, these people who end up as  President wield significant power, and their decisions could impact all life on earth. So we have to pay attention, don't we?  Even if it is a sham? The thing is, how do we know what parts are real, if any?

Hell, I don't know. What do you think?


Blogger Peter of Lone Tree said...

"So-called presidential debates are well-rehearsed, prescripted theater. Theater of the absurd best describes them. Election outcomes aren't influenced. They don't edify. They insult. Wednesday night was no exception.

"Even some media scoundrels were underwhelmed. At least one was honest as far as his editors let him. London Guardian contributor Charles Ferguson headlined "America's duopoly of money in politics and manipulation of public opinion," saying:

"Behind the divisiveness lies a deeper bipartisan consensus in which donors own democracy and there are no votes (for) reform."

"Presidential campaigns aren't where you look for honest, serious" policy discussions. Candidates prefer "slogans." They steer clear of controversy.

"(Sometimes, as with George W. Bush, we also get a moron.)"

Steve Lendman at:
Flim Flam Substitutes for Debate

10:37 AM  
Blogger Anna Van Z said...

So true. Here's another take on it from Glenn Greenwald.

7:26 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home