I don't know why TV news obsesses on the dumbest things while only giving occasional lip service to important issues. I'm guessing that it's a combination of their perceived need to entertain, their extreme reluctance to rock any sort of corporate boat, and a near-total disconnect between the life of a typical TV reporter and a middle class American. What I know is that news here in the US is getting dumber and more childish every day. When the Pope came to New York recently, everyone on NBC News acted like a teenage girl. It was creepy.

I'm looking for a politician that will cut taxes for *everyone* without all of the class warfare stuff.

Obama ain't it.

Leaving aside the definition of "truth", if you want a story to be repeated you need interesting video.

If TAPPED really wanted real reporting, they'd pony up some money to encourage people to ask real questions at campaign appearances. Put them up on Youtube, and then if one of those questions shows that a candidate doesn't really have much of a plan or calls them on a lie, it will get played over and over.

And, of course, there's the plan TAPPED and other groups already know about: nomoreblather.com/policy-debates
That would generate video too; if it only involves campaign advisors it might not get played over and over, but if shows a weakness it might.

So, if TAPPED really wants real reporting, come up with somewhere between $2000 and $10,000 and get in touch with me to work out the details.

Your mistake is in thinking the traditional media is in the business of educating and informing voters, Ezra. In reality, the media is about entertainment, selling ads, and earning high ratings which all can be accomplished (perhaps even can be better accomplished) without doing a good job of covering politics.

I'm looking for a politician that will cut taxes for *everyone*

You may want to live in a country which does not pay for the infrastructure or amenities that a modern-first-world country has. Unfortunately for you, the realities of a modern state are such that we cannot even cover the costs of government as it is.

I, however, prefer the 1st-world lifestyle and infrastructure that living in a modern, western country provides, and as far as I can tell, there aren't that many available jobs in Monaco.

The astute voter will have realized in 2001 that taxes were being lowered for a temporary time period during a time of "good times" as well as to prevent the costs of the war from being felt too immediately and concluded that such a tax regime was a temporary one and planned accordingly. Those few who overextended themselves assuming artificially low-tax tax rates forever have only themselves to blame. Hoping that a politician will bail you out of your own poor planning failures when it comes to tax rates is a sign of bad character, and this is probably reflexive of many, many McCain voters.

In all likelihood, McCain's tax plan would be a disaster. The reason for this is that he has to LIE in his ads to promote it. If McCani's ideas were any good, he wouldn't have to lie about his opponents'. So I conclude that the guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

Dude, Tyro. I totally feel you, but that last paragraph... I've got to borrow it to show to my LSAT class as an example of real-life faulty logic.

Please don't be offended. I really do agree with you, but you've got a couple major flaws: 1) absence of evidence: just because someone lies about something to promote it doesn't mean it's not a good plan. 2) comparison: just because something's a disaster doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about.

anyhow, I agree but respectfully disagree with your reasoning.

Worst of all, because of the obsessions over trivial items instead of reporting on issues and fact, the American public will always tell you that candidates have "no plans."

This is, of course, despite the fact that Obama's plans are readily available and fairly detailed. It's just that when there's no reporting on it, the public perceives it to be non-existent.

And that's why passing out tire gauges that say "Obama's Energy Plan" work. Because the public has no idea that a real one even exists.

JonE, I understand what you mean, but this isn't about putting together an ironclad chain-of-evidence: it's about making a judgment call. If a business is pitching an investment opportunity to you, and you can see that they're lying about their facts and figures, it doesn't necessarily mean, logically, the business is a bad investment, but if it were a good investment, it seems that stating the facts without dishonesty would suffice.

If McCain's plan is so good, why does he have to lie to promote it?

Ezra, you totally miss the point.

Critiquing style over substance isn't a "media" thing. It's a Republican strategy for winning elections. The Democrats don't do it. The Republicans do it. To win elections. (Because the Republicans are aware that people don't actually like Republican policies, but that's beside the point.)

The corporate media plays along with this Republican strategy because the owners of the media are well aware what it is and how it works.

How can I explain this... Suppose the Republicans, in every election, advanced the idea that the Democratic candidate was actually an alien from Pluto, so you shouldn't vote for him. Each election they did this. Each election the corporate media spent hundreds of hours talking about whether candidate X was or was not an alien from Pluto. This would NOT be an inherent attribute of news media - talking about the Plutoness of Democratic candidates. Rather it's just the corporate media, under instructions from their owners, advancing the Republican storyline which Republicans want to advance.

So criticizing this as some sort of media failing - they must want to do better, but just can't somehow - is completely wrong and useless. You're totally missing the point, which is that the bullshit is both intentional and desired. The corporate media is publishing exactly what they want to publish. They are NOT trying and failing to publish objective, useful truths.

Unfortunately, it's not simply a matter of filling air time, it's a matter of filling air time so as to maximize ratings and ad revenue. One great way to do this is by spending an inordinate amount of time discussing opinion driven issues --like the tire gauge saga--because even politically disengaged people can form an opinion on the most basic summary of the event. If someone can form an opinion about an issue, they will be more likely to stay tuned. Lies on the other hand, like the one mentioned in Ezra's post, can be debunked, but the discussion ends there. To repeat it is to literally repeat the same thing over an over again. Opinion driven arguments can be rehashed without a winner ever being declared, and the "news content" somehow maintains greater freshness, allowing it to to fill more time while also driving ratings. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it goes for profit seeking news outlets.

"""But when it comes to promises, it's worth pointing out that, ...""

No, no, no, it realy ISN't worth pointing out Obamas promises NBC, its just not. We know all candidates make 'promises' on 'issues' and you want voters to weigh those issues and pick their candidate etc. but that is a huge pile of bullcrap.

Promises don't mean anything to someone who brakes them so casually.

What is far more important then campaign promises is how the candidate actually thinks, how he would react to events in office. Obamas history suggests he would have no problem raising taxes on everyone, thinking government knows best how to spend their money.
There is nothing in Obamas background to suggest he would ever side with the people, over the wants of the government.

Ezra,

Aren't you (semi-)regularly on shows like Hardball? Why not, yourself, call whoever it is who books you on those shows, suggesting your readiness to go on to discuss this. Indeed, why don't you make this very point next time you're on, and Chris Matthews starts vomiting up whatever garbage he would otherwise be talking about?

Know your audience. The media that you refer to know their audience, and that's why they give them what they want: the news equivalent to high-fat, high-sugar snacks. Substance, like fresh vegetables, is not attractive to their audience, who don't eat that stuff.