The struggle and loneliness of a political moderate

These days, life can be lonely if a person is a political moderate. Many of us tend to be Independents who do not fit inside the tents of the Democratic and Republican parties.

This loneliness was especially acute during the last couple of weeks when both parties held their national conventions. I could not bring myself to watch much of either of them, but I tried.

Both conventions were basically useless when it came to finding substance. Gone are the days when these events produced genuine news, and they are now reduced to nothing but glorified pep rallies. They are infomercials in which people wearing fancy clothes try to convince us that our problems are not their fault.

It would be an overused cliché to state the two parties are like 10-year-olds on the playground pointing their fingers at the other refusing to take blame. Then again, cliches often earn that status because they speak the truth.

This loneliness is further intensified when Independents search the mainstream media looking for evenhanded and reliable political analysis. We live in an age where bias is not only tolerated but encouraged when it comes to presenting information.

This is especially true when getting information from the major television news networks, and many of them were in rare form during the conventions. It was predictable which network praised and criticized candidates.

Most of the primetime programming on these networks falls into the category of political analysis and commentary. Under these rules, it is acceptable to present opinion and be critical of specific candidates and policies.

However, when certain broadcasters repeatedly fall on one side of a party or candidate it becomes easy to identify their ideology and personal agenda. This is where it becomes dangerous for the average viewer because if they only watch a limited amount of programs, then they are exposed to information presented from one point of view.

During the conventions, some of these news outlets toted the predictable party lines. For example, MSNBC is indisputably in the back pocket of the Democrats and especially President Obama when it comes to its primetime programming.

Too often, broadcasters there rely on emotional techniques when discussing issues and sometimes inject race into debates. The most frequent users of this technique are Chris Matthews and Al Sharpton. When discussing opponents of the president, they inject racial bias as a factor much too much.

I understand that racism is a significant problem in our country, and I have no doubt that it is a factor when it comes to some opponents of the president. There can be no questioning that and for those who feel otherwise, I feel they are being naïve if they do not acknowledge our racial divide.

Still, the frequency in which Matthews and Sharpton use race makes it come across as a power play rather than being legitimately concerned about our nation’s racial climate. I believe the reason more white people do not discuss race is because of a fear of being branded racist if they make a misstatement. Therefore, it becomes easier to just avoid the topic. Because of this, Matthews and Sharpton really are not helping.

On the other side, FOX News has people such as Sean Hannity who has no inhibitions when it comes to throwing around terms like ‘liar’ when describing the president. Don’t get me wrong, it is perfectly acceptable to criticize policies or candidates. However, inflammatory name calling really does no good.

In addition to Hannity, there can be no questioning that FOX presents information from a perspective leaning to the right. Therefore, it is important to understand that when listening.

Accepting information can be tricky so choose wisely.

President Obama misguided in picking fight with Fox News

The struggle to manipulate and control information is a constant battle for most politicians. They want to control how their messages reach the public.

As the media's size has exploded over the last couple of decades, this has become much more difficult. The expanded presence of newspapers on the Internet, 24-hour cable news channels, and talk radio have all played major roles in causing headaches for politicians.

This is good news for the public. The public needs access to information from many different outlets in order to develop a well-rounded viewpoint on issues. However, the battle between politicians and the media remains a spirited one.

A recent example of this was when the Obama administration began a campaign of sorts to discredit the Fox News cable channel. Administration officials like White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have appeared on high profile shows to criticize Fox.

The main point being made by officials is that Fox really is not a news reporting organization. They claim it is really a televised form of talk radio, and because of this, the network should not be considered on the same level as organizations like the Cable News Network (CNN).

The timing of the administration's efforts is curious. Right now, President Obama is grappling with how to handle the war in Afghanistan and guide our economy out of its severe rut. Yet, despite all these problems, the president is apparently expending quite a bit of time to discredit a news network.

Officials representing his administration have been making the rounds for several weeks to press the criticism of Fox. These are not casual, off-the-cuff remarks. These officials are repeatedly criticizing the network.

The purpose of this column is not to defend or criticize Fox. As a reader, if you are taking time to read this blog, I trust that you are capable of coming to your own conclusions about what Fox does. The issue is how upfront the Obama administration is being in its dislike of the network.

However, cloaked in the administration's attacks, there are traces of hypocrisy. Though branding Fox as nothing more than an extension of the Republican Party oversimplifies the issue, this is what they are doing.

The hypocrisy enters this debate when the administration fails to criticize news outlets that are friendly to him who use the same general approach as Fox. For example, MSNBC is unrelentingly supportive of President Obama, and their prime time line up of shows takes the same approach as Fox except they have liberal commentators.

So, apparently, the president does not have a problem with a talk radio approach on television as long as it supports him. In fact, the president is apparently going out of his way to assist MSNBC.

The Los Angeles Times recently reported that private briefings are being given to MSNBC commentators Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. Olbermann and Maddow are both in MSNBC's prime time schedule and compete directly with Fox shows that are giving the administration the most heartburn.

Again, the hypocrisy here is pretty compelling. The next question is obvious. Why is the administration doing this?

If nothing else, President Obama did not receive a lot of strong criticism leading up to his election last year. Saturday Night Live lampooned this fact last year in a devastating sketch that illustrated how much tougher the press was on Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

Because of this, the president appears ill-prepared for some of the criticism he has been receiving.

He says he doesn't lose sleep over Fox. The reality appears otherwise.

Tony Snow was great, too

The last few weeks have been emotional ones within the ranks of the national media community.

Last month, NBC's Tim Russert died of a heart attack, leaving that network with a gaping hole when it comes to its political coverage.

Then, Tony Snow, who was best known for his work on Fox News and as President Bush's press secretary, died last week of cancer at age 53. Snow had battled the disease for the last few years and had to leave the Bush administration in 2007 because of the illness.

Though the styles of the two differed, they also had similarities that resulted in both being among the best in the business.

Both men were known for being upbeat, but the way they projected themselves was often quite different.

When watching Russert, his eyes twinkled when he questioned public figures, and the enthusiasm he had for his craft often appeared like a big ball of energy that he could barely keep contained.

Snow, on the hand, appeared much more laid back. There was a calmness and gentleness to his demeanor that was very appealing.

In an age where "in-your-face" media coverage is all the rage, Snow was a refreshing departure from that. True, he was very adept at sparring with the media when he was press secretary, but there was a dignity to his approach that set him apart.

'Gentleness' is an adjective that is rarely used when describing a journalist, but I believe it was an important ingredient in what made him so successful. When he worked at Fox News, he could grill a politician as expertly as Russert did. However, it was usually done in a gracious way that allowed his guest to make his point and allowed the audience to make up its own mind on the issue being discussed.

Unfortunately, our society really doesn't understand what gentleness means. To many, gentleness is seen as a weakness that means a person is soft or wishy-washy.

Of course, that isn't the case at all. In many cases, being gentle in a situation requires intense emotional strength and discipline. However, we don't see a lot of that in the media and society.

The reason much of the media has embraced the "in-your-face" approach is because it is a reflection of our culture. We love confrontation and controversy.

Because of this, deep and thoughtful discussions on important issues are often brushed aside so we can all focus on whatever the scandal of the day is.

Snow was truly unique. Though his career blossomed in arenas associated with Republicans, he was also respected for the independent way that he questioned politicians and reported stories. This is a trait that he shared with Russert who began his career in Democratic politics.

With the deaths of these two, their approaches to informing the public may slowly be going the way of the dinosaur. Though that analogy may be a little over the top, there can be no denying their approaches are occupying a smaller and smaller portion of the media landscape.

Many news programs contain only a few minutes of news and devote most of the program to "commentary" that is slanted toward a particular ideology.

Though there are programs that pander to both conservatives and liberals, the worst examples of this can be found on the MSNBC network. When it isn't showing re-runs of To Catch a Predator or prison documentaries, it presents programs so slanted that it is obvious who they favor and who they do not.

And we all suffer because of it.