As I was sitting here listening to the student debate, I could not believe what I was hearing. Is it true that my fellow Republicans can not construct a simple sentence vocally? Was it really that hard for a McCain supporter to cite, with passion and conviction, the ideas of his candidate? It was so horrible that I was screaming to cut the supposed McCain's supporters microphone off while sitting in the control room.
After the debate was over and students were streaming out into the hallway to the blogzone, I overheard a horrific fact; The supposed McCain supporter was not a McCain supporter at all! The producer of the show didn't seem to have a bonafide Republican to speak, so he just got someone who was willing to "debate" on air instead.
These facts, understandably, got me worked into a frenzy. I screamed out into the control room, "THIS IS WHY I HATE TELEVISION! LIBERAL BIAS EVERYWHERE!"
I mean, seriously, by getting someone who can not even articulate the Right's stance on the issues, how does that make Republican's look, especially when standing next to a Obama supporter who is quite well versed in the Left's talking points?
For about ten minutes after the "debate" was over, I was left in a state of disbelief and anger. I demanded that CUTV write a retraction, stating that the supposed Republican supporter was not, in fact, a McCain supporter. I told the producer that if he needed a Republican that could articulate a sentence to let me know because I would gladly step up to the task.
Fortunately, the polls were already long closed before this fake debate was aired and anyone heard the snoozefest-filled fake Republican.
Another good thing to come out of this event is that I made a decision here and now that I would be more active within my University's Radio/Television department. Well, I guess the view that my increased participation is a good thing really depends on the view of the beholder. But at the end of the day, if this department ever needs a true Republican for a debate, interview or simply a sound-bite, they will have one. At least then the department can partake in real journalism instead of made-for-TV drama.
This isn't one bit constructive, it's just angry ranting.
ReplyDeleteMight wanna take the low blows to a more negative atmosphere!
Thank you for taking the time to comment. One thing that I stress to my students about these type of media is the beauty of the ability for everyone, regardless of political stance, to voice their opinions in a public forum and allow others to respond in kind. I am confident others will disagree with some of your statements here, and I hope you take the time to reply and enter into a civil debate with your classmates and colleagues.
ReplyDeleteAngry ranting? Yes, it is angry. I am angry that a true debate did not occur due to the fact that the debate was missing a key element: A true McCain supporter.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe that out of all the students enrolled in this University, not one true Republican could be found to enter this debate.
That being said, I do understand that the student producers of this show were and are trying something historical. I understand that they worked very hard to bring this show about and I will state that other than the student debate segment, I believe this show has been a wonderful opportunity for all who are involved. I do not believe the producer meant to intentionally deceive the audience; however, when I found out that the McCain supporter was NOT a McCain supporter, just someone to fill the slot, that is exactly how I felt - deceived.
Is it too much to ask that if we are going to air a debate between two political parties that both parties are honestly represented? Am I wrong to demand that much?
Honestly, is that truly a "low blow"? Must I truly take my comments to another forum? Is this forum only meant for those who think exactly the same way and stick to the status quo of the clique? Are my views and experiences of being here in this studio not to be heard because one deems them negative? Perhaps you view them as negative. They are, however, honest and in no way attempt to deceive the reader into thinking it is something that it is not.
I totally understand your point, but I don't think that it's necessary to accuse our University's R/TV department of producing "made for TV drama" and stating that the department does not produce real journalism. The R/TV students work harder than almost any other students on campus to inform and educate. Just because you believe that they are biased you cannot deny that the content that they produce is real, constructive journalism.
ReplyDeleteI do not know all the dialogue and dynamics that went into that debate. I missed it.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, think it is important that a debate include educated and informed and invested participants. On both sides. All things being equal. Otherwise, it is not much of a debate, is it?
One other thing that may add fuel to the fire is that the Cameron Collegian Staff endorsed Senator Obama in the November 3 issue.
Because of that, any attempts to not factually and wholeheartedly represent the Republicans point of view may be seen as biased.
Sometimes what is said is not important as how it is said.
For the record, I will clarify that my comment about "made for TV drama" was pinpointed to that particular segment - not the entire telecast or any other broadcast by the department.
ReplyDeleteHowever, knowing full well what happened, how can I trust anything that has or will be produced? I have faith in my fellow R/TV Majors, as I am a R/TV Major myself. I do not believe the intent was to deceive, albeit that is what occurred, although I do believe it was an honest mistake.
Perhaps the point was not made loud enough that this situation made me realize that perhaps (absolutely) that I am not involved enough in the productions of my majors and that because of this I intend to take a more active role within my desired discipline. The silver lining in the cloud, so to speak.
The point of bias journalism being constructive can be a tricky issue, would you not agree? If all I show is the positive light of one side of an arguement and not all sides of an aruguement, how is that constructive? In my opinion, that is taking advantage of our positions as broadcasters and journalists to inform the public of only one side of an issue. Yes, it is the public's responsibility to research and gain knowledge from a variety of sources but it is also the responsibility of the media to be as forthcoming and honest as possible. Bias itself does not bother me, as long as the bias is acknowledged openly and there are no attempts to hide such bias.
Having not been present, and only having the words of those involved,one can conclude this department reflects the opinions of the school. It is not unlike the "Real" media that reflects the opinions of the network. Journalism once was reporting the news, which consisted of facts. News Opinions or Editorials were so stated prior to broadcasting or printing. The Media of today combines both news and opinions into a single story thereby leavng the viewer/reader informed but confused, since facts and opinions are not stated seperately. It appears the Media feels it's audience is not capable of forming their pwn opinion or capable of understanding what was reported or debated. The past debates, not just this year but for the past four elections, and every speech given by a president, always end with a segment telling us incapable of understanding what was said, what was said. I can only hope the CU will produce journalists in the mold of Huntly Brinkly Morrow and Pyle.
ReplyDeleteFinancially broke, since you are so all dead-set that the Republican debater did a crappy job, why don't you explain here why McCain was a decent candidate and should have won?
ReplyDeleteOr it is just the hard reality, that it is hard to find a student who will defend a fascist who . . .
1. supports 100 years of war in Iraq
2. wants to lower taxes for the rich
3. wants to tax your health care benefits
and
4. promised to cut student loans and other financial aid.
Never once did I say that McCain "should" have won. Are you missing the entire point? It isn't just that the "Republican" debater did a "Crappy" job, it is that he was NOT A REPUBLICAN!
ReplyDeleteAs far as your points, you are taking the "100 Year War" out of context. Historically, after a war or conflict, the United States has held some presence within the country of conflict many years after the conflict supposedly ended. Examples: Our military still has active bases in South Korea, Germany, Italy, Spain, England, Guam, the Phillipines, Belgium and Iceland. Saying that we could potentially have a military presence in Iraq for 100 years is not really that far of a stretch for a country that still has a high military presence in Germany 60 plus years after the ending of World War Two, would you not say?
As far as wanting to cut the taxes of the rich, I personally do not understand why anyone would want to raise taxes on those who create jobs and pay employees. I do not understand why we want to "penalize" those who have taken the risks to become successful and whose risks have materalized into monetary gain. Of course, it also depends on WHY we are raising the taxes of the "rich" and what is defined as "rich". My definintion of "rich" could be anyone making $40,000 a year. "Rich" is such an abritarty term that changes depending on whose opinion you are obtaining. Also, what are the reasons? To redistrubute someone elses hard work, sacrifices and realized return to those who have not put in the effort? Or is it to ensure that all have the same opportunities via the education system? Two completely different scenerios and my support of raising taxes would be dependent on the specific reasons those increased revenues would support.
I do not agree with taxing health care benefits. Period.
As far as cutting student loans and other financial aid, it is my opinion that too many students take on student loans they do not need, thus graduating with a debt load many times higher than their potential starting salary. It is simply not necessary. Personally, I am a single mother of two children under the age of 10, work full time while enrolled in school full time. I do not receive financial aid nor do I take on student loans. The choice to come to Cameron University was made in part because I can actually pay tuition without student loans or financial aid. This is, of course, a personal answer to the question. But another example would be one of my child hood friends who attended Spring Hill University in Mobile, Alabama and then Tulane Law School in New Orleans, Louisiana. He now has over 100,000 in student loan debt. His salary? MAYBE $50,000 a year, at MOST. Reason? He became a public servant, being elected as a State Representative. With the schedule of the State Congree, he is not able to actively pursue his private practive. While his service to his country deserves admiration and applause, he know has more student loan debt than he can handle. If his intentions were always to run for state office (Which they were), why did he not simply attend law school at a school that did not have a $30,000 a year price tag?
I did laugh about your "fascist" comment. Thanks for the humor.
No, I do not think it is hard to find a Student Republican who would debate their parties stance on the issues. I know several student republicans who would have done so. The bottom line is that the show was done without a student Republican, and as such, was not a true debate between a student Democrat and a student Republican, which makes the whole debate irrelevant and a farce.