Another Interesting Take on the Clinton PBS documentary

Jim, this is another good take on the Clinton documentary (along with the Lanny Davis one I forwarded off blog), and widening to the Obama presidency and the media.
The main point of it, which I agree with, I think is framed well and boils down a lot of what I say better than I have done. His main point, as I see it, is that our media is in large part to blame for the demise of our democracy (or at least our informed democracy) because no matter what the two parties say, the media will always treat it as simply two equal sides of the same coin. They see no objective truth or reality; they simply report he said/he said. So when one party goes completely off the rails and just makes stuff up, you’ll never know that from our (television) media, because they will simply continue to report the two sides as though both had equal validity, an equal claim to reality and objective fact. And since most Americans get their news (what little they may get) only from television, we end up where we are, with large parts of the country believing that, for example, Newt Gingrich really could magically make gasoline cost a mere two dollars a gallon as soon as he took office. Or that Obama has gone around apologizing for America. Or that there are death panels. Or that Obama really didn’t want to get Bin Laden. Or….well, you get the idea.


About JP

We're two guys who met in college, in 1980. We've stayed in touch, and like to talk politics, current events, music and religion. JP is nore liberal than Sid, but not in every way. We figure that dialogue stimulates ideas, moderates perspective, and is in general friendly. These are things we need badly in these dangerous times. The blog name is taken from a song by Bruce Cockburn.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Another Interesting Take on the Clinton PBS documentary

  1. Jim says:

    I saw the second show of the two parts. It devoted about an hour to the Lewinsky scandal. Honestly, a quarter of the whole time is probably fair for the Clinton presidency. Clinton did a lot, and most of it good, but that scandal, which resulted in the house impeaching him, overshadowed a lot of his image. I grant that the impeachment was a petty partisan witch hunt, just looking for dirt on him. But that was part of the message it delivered. I think the documentary (sans quotes) treated his presidency fairly. Don’t feed the sharks, and they are less likely to eat you.

    Politics is more than just issues, it necessarily has an “Entertainment Tonight” aspect. What do we remember about Herman Cain, or Rick Perry?

  2. JP says:

    Of course there is an Entertainment Tonight part of politics, I’ll give you that. And that is one of the biggest problems with our politics, I think. If the critique is right that the doc didn’t make clear that none of the scandals (save Lewinsky) had any truth to them in the end, then I could say that was bad reporting. Of course, as I said, I didn’t see it. You didn’t answer my question, though. Is it worth my time to watch it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s