Elisberg Industries
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Products
    • Books
    • Movies
  • About Elisberg Industries
    • Our Corporate Board
    • Information Overstock
    • Elisberg Industries Entertainment Information
    • Elisberg Statistical Center of American Research
    • Consultancy Service
  • Contact
    • How to Find Us
  • Kudos
  • Good Things to Know
    • The BOB Page
    • Sites You Might Actually Like
Decent Quality Since 1847

The Point Rachel Maddow is Getting Wrong

7/24/2015

0 Comments

 
I tend to generally like Rachel Maddow's show.  I also tend to record it so that I fast-forward through various parts.  This include the often 8-10 minute openings at the beginning of the program when she gives history lessons.  To be clear, I like that there's a news anchor who is willing to put news in perspective, especially with a younger viewing audience that might not know the background.  It's just that sometimes she takes SO long to saying what the actual top news story is, and I don't want to play guessing games.  I'm watching the news, for goodness sake.  Tell me the top story and then put it in perspective.  And sometimes I know the history just fine, so on a personal level I don't want to sit through 10 minutes of refreshing.  Though on occasion I do find them interesting.

There are other things I fast-forward, but that's unimportant here.  The point is, after all, that I generally do like the show, which is why I've seen it enough to know these quirks.  And in the end, they're quirks.  We all have them.

But that brings us to a separate matter -- a jag she's been on for months that I don't agree with her about.  And the fact that she's been on it for so long and with such almost-joyful repetition that I think it's worth noting.  The issue in question concerns how "Fox News" is limiting the number of participants in the upcoming GOP presidential debate to the 10 top candidates in an average of five national polls.

To be clear, I think Rachel Maddow is right to ridicule what a terrible policy this is, and how awful it is that a political party has seeded decisions for its presidential primaries to a TV network, and what a mess "Fox News" has made of things.  So, that's all fine.  But -- it's that she makes such a massive and repeated emphasis that by doing handling the debates this way, "Fox News" has essentially eliminated the candidates who don't get into this upcoming debate from having any chance of getting the nominations -- and that's where I think she's not only totally wrong, but repeatedly and unrelentingly wrong.

First of all, I don’t think most people even watch primary debates.  So, whoever is not in the debate is not going to be missed by most voters, any more than whoever IS in the debate is going to get all that much attention either.  TV networks have traditionally put on reruns in the summer, because so many people are on vacation or turn their brains off, and so viewership is down.  To think that these same people who can't be bothered to watch a sitcom in the summer are going to be so intensely riveted on instead watching a political primary debate in these same summer months is deeply misguided.  I do think more people than usual are likely to watch this time around because they'll want to see if Donald Trump crashes the train, but -- a) "more people than usual" doesn't mean much because the "usual" is so paltry you can hear the crickets, and b) viewers will be watching for the circus effect, not which political candidates are worth their support.  

Second, it’s SO early, and what happens at a debate in August (half a year before the Iowa caucus) will be meaningless for most voters.  So, whoever does, in fact, watch the debate isn't going to let it have much of an impact on them.  There's far too much going on in their lives between August and the voting next year for it to matter much next month, if at all.

Third, the reason the earliest primaries and caucuses are in Iowa and New Hampshire is precisely because they're small states, and that allows the candidates to get more personal contact and individual news coverage than most elsewhere.  And also the cost of buying ad time on television is less, so all candidates -- including those not on the debate stage -- will be able to blanket the air more readily in these states than most place.

And finally, fourth -- and this might even be the most important point of all -- there will actually be other debates before the voting and most of them won’t be handled by Fox!  So, just because someone doesn't make the debate stage on "Fox News" in August, they might likely be on the stage in September.  And October.  Long before the voting months away next year in 2016.

I do understand that it's important to get on the debate stage because you have a chance to say something, to say that one snappy line that gets on the news and is remembered, which helps push a candidate to prominence.  But that's not only rare, the candidates will get all those other upcoming debates to get their bon mots in.

Yes, it's a debate debacle that "Fox News" has created that is causing so much consternation within the Republican Party, and it's worthy of the attention and ridicule.  But to think that this mess will specifically be the reason candidates are forced out of the race is just crushingly-wrong analysis.  And it is my hope that, at some point, someone gets the point across to Rachel Maddow so she can get off it already.

In fact, in her interview this week with Rick Santorum -- who has been a vocal critic of the Republican Party for ceding the rules to Fox and who himself is not likely to qualify for this first debate -- even he was unflustered by it all and dismissed its important when Ms. Maddow brought up how problematic for him not being in the debate must be to his candidacy.  Now, in fairness, some of his dismissal of her point was because he couldn't show his campaign being hurt by anything, but mainly he was pretty calm in his unconcern of its impact.  And explained his reasons -- the heart of which was "People won't remember what they hear in a debate in August."  He didn't like the procedure because it's bad procedure, and he does, after all, want to be in the debate.  But as for it crushing and ending his campaign not being on the debate stage in August...the impact, he said, was negligible.

And it is.  The Fox Debates are a mess and a joke.  But they're a mess and a joke for how they were set up.  Not for any great impact they'll likely have.  And I do so hope that Rachel Maddow eventually gets that and focuses her ridicule on the aspects of the Fox-mangled debates where it's deserved.

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Picture
    Elisberg Industries gets a commission if you click here before shopping on Amazon.
    Picture
    Follow @relisberg

    Author

    Robert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. 

    Elisberg is a two-time recipient of the Lucille Ball Award for comedy screenwriting. He's written for film, TV, the stage, and two best-selling novels, is a regular columnist for the Writers Guild of America and was for
    the Huffington Post.  Among his other writing, he has a long-time column on technology (which he sometimes understands), and co-wrote a book on world travel.  As a lyricist, he is a member of ASCAP, and has contributed to numerous publications.



    Picture
           Feedspot Badge of Honor

    Archives

    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013

    Categories

    All
    Animals
    Audio
    Audio Land
    Books
    Business
    Chicago
    Consumer Product
    Education
    Email Interview
    Entertainment
    Environment
    Fine Art
    Food
    From The Management
    Health
    History
    Huffery
    Humor
    International
    Internet
    Journalism
    Law
    Los Angeles
    Media
    Morning News Round Up
    Movies
    Music
    Musical
    Personal
    Photograph
    Piano Puzzler
    Politics
    Popular Culture
    Profiles
    Quote Of The Day
    Radio
    Religion
    Restaurants
    Science
    Sports
    Tech
    Technology
    Tech Tip
    Theater
    The Writers Workbench
    Tidbits
    Travel
    Tv
    Twitter
    Video
    Videology
    Well Worth Reading
    Words-o-wisdom
    Writing

    RSS Feed

© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2023
Contact Us    About EI    Chicago Cubs
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Products
    • Books
    • Movies
  • About Elisberg Industries
    • Our Corporate Board
    • Information Overstock
    • Elisberg Industries Entertainment Information
    • Elisberg Statistical Center of American Research
    • Consultancy Service
  • Contact
    • How to Find Us
  • Kudos
  • Good Things to Know
    • The BOB Page
    • Sites You Might Actually Like