The Looking Glass

The Great Debate of 2008

The national media. The thoughts and responses of one Tyler Luhman. Which one of these is not like the other? To find out, I compared my initial thoughts on last Wednesday’s presidential debate to those of the national media—or in this case, one alternate source. Does the media skew the event in one direction or another? Do they become soft and avoid any possible accusations of bias? May the best man win, as the anticipated matchup between Tyler Luhman and the national media begins. Do your worst my friends—I will not go down without a fight.
After watching the debate, I thought the most important topic that was discussed was economics, and the debate on how we should fix our current economic crisis. Hardly anything else was mentioned over the course of the debate, and even if something else came up, the conversation quickly switched over to the economic side of things. The candidates were asked to state their economic plans, and then to compare their own plans to that of their opponent’s. One thing I noticed is that after a candidate described his plan, they failed to make any sort of comparison to the other candidate’s plan. In fact, disregard for the mediator’s questions occurred throughout the entire debate, with the candidates instead pursuing their own agendas by talking about what they wanted to talk about. This happened frequently, and at times mediator Bob Schieffer had to intervene and cut off the candidates—either they would completely avoid the question, or talk longer than the time allowed. Overall, both candidates seemed to avoid conflict at the beginning of the debate, but as time wore on, more and more personal attacks were brought to the table, with John McCain delivering a majority of the blows. Instead of analyzing the debate using what both candidates did as examples, it is easier to take a look at which each candidate did individually.
Senator John McCain’s performance during the debate was one heck of a roller coaster ride. At the start, McCain seemed unprepared and nervous, often repeating phrases such as ‘American Dream’ and ‘Joe the Plumber’. In my opinion, McCain’s strategy during the debate was to become personal with the American public by trying to be specific and attempting to relate to the middle class. In the early stages of the debate, McCain held off from attacking Barack Obama, instead he tried to make himself seem like the victim. He did this by citing instances where Obama’s campaign and its supporters falsely or unethically accused McCain of certain things. Over the course of the debate, though, McCain’s tone changed drastically. He began to attack Obama often, announcing that Obama would “spread the wealth” of Americans, and that he wanted the small business owners of America to suffer. McCain’s attacks turned harsher towards the end of the debate when he accused Obama of associating with Bill Ayers, a leader of a terrorist group in the 1960s. Also, McCain questioned Obama’s association with Acorn, a group which allegedly registers ineligible voters. McCain’s objective by bringing up these two organizations was to instill a connection between them and Obama in American minds. It did not really matter if the two groups were still associated with Obama or not because all McCain wanted to do was bring them up and the negative things they have done. McCain’s trip through the debate was an unconventional one, and in my opinion, his tactics ultimately failed. He started off slow, acting every bit of his age, showing nervousness and a lack of preparation. As time went on, McCain calmed down, and became smoother in his speaking. With the change in his demeanor came a change in his tactics as well. Instead of avoiding the attack, McCain chose to attack Obama on all fronts—a questionable tactic. Although McCain did recover and compose himself, he provided a poor image of himself by attacking too often.
Unlike John McCain, Senator Barack Obama’s performance throughout the debate was linear without much change at all. Compared to McCain, Obama was strong at the beginning of the debate, appearing comfortable and conversational. Although Obama seemed prepared, he still avoided answering many of the questions directly, and instead discussed unrelated material. To be fair, Obama’s main reason for avoiding the questions was to refute some of John McCain’s accusations against him. In my opinion, Obama did a great job defending himself from McCain’s attacks, appearing confident and comfortable in his refutations. When John McCain accused Obama of associating with 1960s radical Bill Ayers, Obama—without hesitation—denounced the claim saying that Ayers had never been involved with the campaign, and that he never will be involved. Obama almost seemed to know the attacks were coming, and he was confident and prepared in his responses. My overall impression of Obama was that he seemed cool and collected throughout the entire debate—which is of the greatest importance in a televised event. Even if Obama’s policies and stances were sub-par compared to those of McCain, it wouldn’t matter, because appearance and demeanor means everything in publically televised events like these. Because of this, Obama ‘won’ the debate, appearing much calmer than his opponent on the national stage.




Compared to the National Media’s Opinion

“US presidential debate: John McCain fails to dent Barack Obama's lead” (Spillius).

The title of Alex Spillius’ article sums up his thoughts in one line—although he tried, John McCain failed to change the status quo by the end of Wednesday’s presidential debate. Spillius’ article centers on topics such as Joe the Plumber, Bill Ayers, and the Acorn community group. The article references John McCain’s harsh tactics towards the end of the debate, including his accusations of Obama associating with Bill Ayers and Acorn. Spillius gives information regarding McCain’s tactics, saying that his approach “seemed to have backfired, with snap opinion polls by US television networks all scoring a large victory for Mr. Obama” (Spillius). The overall focus of Spillius’ article is on McCain and how he attempted—but failed—to make a comeback in the national polls. The article is unbiased, and presents an honest opinion of the results through analysis and summarization.
I agree with a majority of what the article describes as the main parts of the debate, although I feel Spillius left out some important information. McCain’s nervous demeanor in the beginning of the debate is not described, and as a result of this, the reader is not provided with a clear description of what happened. In my opinion, he does this to not appear one-sided, and lose his objectivity. This is understandable, because it is important to appear non-partisan in the national media, so even though I think McCain’s appearance should have been included; it makes sense why it isn’t.
After comparing my reaction to the debate to that of the media’s, there didn’t seem to be many differences. The lasting image of the debate is obviously McCain and how he performed, and he became the centerpiece of both Spillius’ and my analysis. The main difference between my reaction and Spillius’ is that I was able to be partisan if I so wished, while he wasn’t. The inability to be biased almost limits the national media into providing a loose summary of the event, without being able to (sometimes) accurately report a story. As a result of this comparison, it is now my belief that in certain cases opinion articles may be more reliable than articles from the national media. The belief differs from my previous belief that opinion articles were all nonsense, while I put my trust into the national media. I am glad this experiment has opened my eyes to alternate ways to receive the news, and this may be the only time I can say that opinions overpower the facts.

posted by Tyler @ 11:00 PM