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.

If you think taxes are too high, then Janeane Garofalo says you're a racist

On April 15, demonstrators around the nation protested our country's current tax system by participating in gatherings called "tea parties." I did not participate in one, but I have plenty of problems with our current tax structure. The Internal Revenue Service's tax code is way too complex, and many people are taxed so much that it creates legitimate hardship in their lives.

I thought the "tea parties" were an interesting way to express displeasure, and the first amendment certainly protects the rights of the protesters to state their points. There were plenty of comments after these rallies, but the most laughable ones were made by actress/comedian Janeane Garofalo.

She said this on Keith Olbermann's show on MSNBC:

"Let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks."

Those are pretty remarkable comments. First of all, when did Garofalo gain the track record and credentials to be taken seriously as a pundit about taxes and race relations? I know she did some talk radio stuff, but there is no way she should be a credible resource for a news program that airs during prime time.

Of course, we are talking about Keith Olbermann's program. Though I enjoy his writings on baseball, he has no business hosting a news program. He does not attempt to present impartial discussions regarding the issues of the day. It has been embarrassing watching him sell out to the Obama administration. If it was physically possible for him to get pregnant and deliver a child with the president as the father, I am convinced he would do it.

As for Garofalo, the most damaging thing she said in her comments was to play the race card. There were scores of different ways to critique the demonstrations, but she took an amateurish approach and blamed it on race.

Her comments are exactly why many people are hesitant to enter into meaningful discussions about the racial climate in America. People are afraid they will be branded a racist if the people they are having the dialogue with do not agree with their comments.

And that is a crying shame.

Civil war at MSNBC

The media is one of the most important elements of any election season, especially when we are electing a president.

Its primary role is to act as an advocate for the people. After all, none of us will likely have access to any of the major players as we approach the election.

Some forums do provide citizens the chance to ask questions to candidates, but those events are usually tightly controlled and don't allow any significant give and take.

Therefore, the media's responsibility should be to ask the questions we would ask if we had the opportunity.

While that seems pretty clear cut, it is not always that easy because many voters believe certain media outlets have a bias against certain candidates.

For example, conservatives often complain about newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post as examples in the media that present news with a liberal slant.

Conversely, most liberals will express similar frustrations against a news outlet like Fox News. Such criticisms from both sides are pretty common during elections.

However, voters very rarely get a glimpse inside a news organization as it develops its strategy to cover a campaign. We got that glimpse recently when MSNBC demoted Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as co-anchors of political night coverage.

Both will remain as commentators, but their roles have been diminished.

Most who follow politics know Olbermann and Matthews from the shows they host each weeknight on MSNBC. Both shows are commentary shows meaning that very little actual news reporting is done. Basically, both men provide their points of view on the issues of the day.

Both (but especially Olbermann) have recently enjoyed a surge in popularity from liberals because of their criticism of the Bush administration. In watching both men perform, it is pretty clear that their political ideology leans to the left.

Within the context of their shows, there is nothing wrong with that. They are paid to present opinions, and they both do so with passion and flair.

However, things went wrong when both were awarded anchoring duties during the recent national political conventions. Basically, MSNBC put commentators into a situation best handled by a news reporter, and as most understand, there is a big difference between being a reporter and a commentator.

The situation reached a low point when Olbermann made several sarcastic comments at the Republican convention. For example, after vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin made her acceptance speech, Olbermann compared her to Reese Witherspoon's character 'Tracy Flick' in the film Election.

If you didn't see that film, trust me, the comment was not intended as a compliment.

MSNBC made a big mistake by putting these men into these roles. However, what is perhaps even more puzzling is that there wasn't much of an outcry when they were first chosen.

If ABC had assigned a conservative pundit like Rush Limbaugh to anchor its coverage at the conventions, criticism would have been loud and long. However, the selection of Olbermann and Matthews caused little criticism.

Based on published reports, it took an internal rebellion from within NBC's news division to get Olbermann and Matthews demoted.

Now, newsman David Gregory will handle anchoring duties for upcoming events.

One has to wonder whether this problem would have occurred if Tim Russert were still alive. Russert was known for his ability to remain impartial and had the most clout within both the NBC and MSNBC news divisions.

My guess is this never would have happened.

Chalk this up to growing pains caused by Russert's loss. However, it couldn't have occurred at a worse time.

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.

Russert's death leaves big shoes to fill

Political news coverage took a big hit recently when NBC's Tim Russert died on June 13 of a heart attack.

It was a big hit not just because Russert was an extremely popular journalist, but also because he was one of the best.

In an era where personal bias and opinion stains a lot of political reporting, Russert had a well-earned reputation for being one of the fairest journalists in the business.

Despite starting his career as an important figure in Democratic politics, he exhibited little personal bias after changing careers and becoming a member of the media.

When a guest appeared on "Meet the Press," it mattered little whether he was a Democrat or a Republican. Russert would relentlessly research his guest and pound them with questions.

However, Russert's influence at NBC carried much beyond "Meet the Press." Despite Brian Williams’ anchoring of "The Night News" and Tom Brokaw still occasionally appearing on the network, Russert was the dominant force when it came to the network's political coverage.

Under normal circumstances, he would be difficult to replace, but his absence will be felt even more at NBC because this is a presidential election year.

Because of this, the big question is: How will NBC handle his loss? This question was at least partly answered when it was announced that Brokaw will handle "Meet the Press" for the election season.

However, don't expect a permanent host to be named for quite a while. Out of respect for Russert, that announcement will likely not be made soon.

Additionally, the show is the most prestigious political talk show on television. Though there will be lots of pressure to quickly name a permanent successor, I doubt it will be a decision made hastily.

Within the network, there doesn't appear to be someone who can match the tone that Russert set for the show. After Brokaw fulfills his duties, options appear to be wide open when it comes to selecting a permanent host.

Some folks have floated Chris Matthews as an option, who currently has a show on MSNBC. Even though Matthews eats and sleeps politics, he would be a bad match for the show.

Russert's trademark was keeping his questioning down the middle while grilling his guests. It was objective journalism that allowed viewers to draw their own conclusions.

Matthews, however, doesn't hesitate to interject his opinions on his show. Like Russert, Matthews' career began in Democratic politics, but unlike him, it is usually pretty easy to tell what politicians he favors. For example, it is painfully clear that he is touting Sen. Barack Obama in this year's presidential race.

If he got involved with "Meet the Press," objectivity would be thrown out the window, and the show would take a severe credibility hit.

The bottom line is he just wouldn't be a good fit.

After him, it is pretty much anybody's guess at this point.

This year's election is already taking shape as a hotly contested race. It will be interesting to see how Russert's absence will impact the reporting of it.

Often times, it is the media that sets the tone for a political race. In losing one of its most important members, the tone will definitely be different.

Though it is a cheesy analogy, Russert's loss is almost like a football team that loses its quarterback before the big game. Somebody will have to step forward to fill his void.

And that will be one of the most interesting sub-plots this autumn.

MSNBC: The ‘Life in Prison’ Documentary All the Time Channel

As I have been settling in for the evening lately, I've noticed that the MSNBC news channel has been airing a lot of documentaries about life in prison.

Every night last week, it seemed there were two hours of prison documentaries followed by Keith Olbermann’s nightly attack on the Bush administration. Then after Olbermann, they went right back to the prison documentaries.

Don't get me wrong. Studying life in prison can be informative. For example, Johnny Cash's concert albums made at Folsom and San Quentin prisons are lively documents about life there.

However, MSNBC seems to have opened the floodgates when it comes to prison programming.

Am I missing something here? Is the demand for these shows that great? Or has MSNBC thrown in the towel when it comes to programming and has decided to show the same type of programs over and over again.

To Catch a Predator ... quality holiday entertainment?

Recently, we celebrated Thanksgiving, which gave us all an opportunity to do an inventory regarding the parts of our lives for which we should be thankful.

We should do this more than once a year, but if it takes a holiday like this to remind us to do so, it isn't the end of the world.

During the quieter moments of the holiday weekend, I spent some time flipping through the television channels to see how the networks were filling up their programming time.

After all, viewers are on the run a lot during this time and watch little television. Therefore, television networks rarely unveil new programming on long holiday weekends. They are content to trot out re-runs or show a lot of football.

However, the folks at the MSNBC cable network must have just thrown in the towel when trying to come up with ideas of what to show.

On Thanksgiving Day, they showed a long marathon of documentaries about life in prison. It was show after show of interviews with inmates and prison personnel about day-to-day life behind bars.

I guess I have to give MSNBC credit for creative thinking because watching just a little of these shows did make me feel thankful. Being in prison is about the last place I would like to be on Thanksgiving so these shows did make me feel good from that perspective.

However, despite a silver lining of good regarding these shows, I thought MSNBC's choice of programming was odd.

Until the next day, when they showed a marathon of programming that dealt with another group of folks who have made really bad decisions.

This marathon dealt with adults who try to entrap children into meeting them by using the internet.

Titled "To Catch a Predator," the program basically was a sting in which adults surf the internet looking to chat with teenagers and entice them into meeting for sex. Then when they show up for their meeting, they get arrested.

I had previously seen this show so I was familiar with what they were trying to do. The internet is a great creation, but like all things, it can be used for really bad deeds. And I believe most of us would agree that an adult cruising for kids on-line is a huge misuse of this technology.

So, MSNBC aired hour after hour of these programs in which the plot varied little.

Man after man was brought in before hidden cameras in which they were interviewed by journalist Chris Hansen. Then, he identified himself and cameramen swooped upon the unsuspecting men, leading to their arrest.

I agree that these programs do some good because they shed light on the dangers that exist on the internet.

However, the more I watched these programs, the more I felt their goal was to titillate instead of inform. The sexual talk was graphic on these programs that left little to the imagination.

After watching a couple of these programs, I couldn't help but wonder why they would stoop to such programming on Thanksgiving weekend.

Just a few years ago, it seemed like films such as "It's A Wonderful Life" with Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed dominated the weekend. But to paraphrase Bob Dylan, the times have changed.

When it comes to television programming, nothing is sacred anymore. Television programmers strive to titillate us, and if they are willing to do this on Thanksgiving, then don't expect any boundaries during other holidays.

Can we expect "To Catch a Predator" marathons on Christmas Day or Eve?

How about Easter? Most folks don't understand why that holiday is celebrated in the first place, so why not serve up some programming to hypnotize the masses?

Television has been referred to as the "great American narcotic machine" and I believe the examples I cited earlier re-enforce that thought.

If we are content to sit and watch hour after hour of this stuff, we really are acting like somebody addicted to a drug.

And that isn't the fault of the television networks. It is ours.