“Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN,” Luisa writes. “I was asked to submit questions including “lighthearted/fun” questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance.” […]

“CNN ran out of time and used me to “close” the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, “you gave our school a bad reputation.’ Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That’s what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That’s politics; that’s reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America–and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question.”

……………..

I can not nor will I say that the CNN debate question represented a low-point of any sort in the degradation and trivialization of our political process.  From what I have heard, the debate itself was no great shakes — a personality contest with a fixed “Reality Show” script everyone follows, and as always you are better off inspecting the contributors’ list for what the candidates might do in office.  I cannot suggest the question represents anything of that sort because it is a simple retreading of the “Boxers or Brief” question for the 1992 cycle — which would resurface for 2004 as “PC or Mac”.  I almost want to suggest it’s not even a sexist question to be propped out there, since “boxers or briefs” is so male-centric — but I cannot quite say that it isn’t.  No one ever

God love the Internet, and God love the vanity press aspect and social networking aspect of the Internet.  Our questionaire aired out the background of the question on her myspace page, something which makes me suspect the same mechinitions at play for the MTV 1992 “Boxers or Briefs?”  It is all amusing and throw-away gags to the nights’ drama — Obama!  Edwards!  Hitting hard at Hillary!  Will they go too far?  Hillary — Not about to Back Down!

Tedium, and I don’t know what to do with or about it, and I still struggle with understanding what I am supposed to do with the political system or how to access it properly.

What do they think of Yucca Mountain anyway?

There is a manner to which this either helps out my faith in the American electorate or it dredges downward my faith in the American electorate process.  The system, you see, wants to break down and destroy anyone’s concern for any issue or policy and bring us to the Lowest Common Denominator.  I have come to cringe at the phrase “dumbing down”, — the phrase itself makes me feel dumb and I demand a smarter term AND occasionally puts me on the defensive in wanting to defend The Dumb — but it fits well here — perhaps Wolf Blitzer does not know this, but he is in Show Business moreso than the News Business, and that is the tendency of Show Biz — Paris Hilton — why do I even know she exists?

This entry was posted on Friday, November 16th, 2007 at 11:35 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.