It's not only the annoying personal hygiene ads that flood commercial and cable television.
It's not only the array of choices with changing tones and
shifting tides in entertainment and political programming.
It's also that I don't have as much confidence as I once had in an increasing number of top presenters of political news and political
commentary. Some at the top seem to work harder to get it right, while others seem to be slipping.
In this environment, something ugly is happening with the way words are increasingly used to tear down rather than to inform or report, to create supposition rather than to deliver what really happened or was said, within the full context.
For some time, I've noticed I'm wearier from having to sift through the conversations. I've become more dissatisfied with the need to sort through the piles of words, even from professionals I used to respect, to separate innuendo or personal agenda from true facts.
This goes for three main networks I have turned to for years for political news or analysis. I'm finding my perceptions and reactions to them changing. I'm increasingly wary and...disappointed. There are still favorites I hold to, but I have longed for a break from the tension.
Last night, a Sunday evening, brought a watershed moment to me. I turned to a commercial news station to get about five minutes of news before going to bed early. You know how it is for some of
us. We need a dose of news to put us to sleep.
I ran into a storm of clever words that amounted to attack and counter-attack about Senator McCain's VP choice.
"Where can I get some unbiased news before
turning in?" I wondered, thinking, "I'm not going to put up with this mess tonight."
I punched in the numbers for a C-Span channel, and got more
than news to see and hear. There was a replay of a 2006 Alaska election debate
among the three gubernatorial candidates that year: the then-sitting governor,
an Alaska legislator, and the mayor of a small Alaskan town. The latter has become part of the national debate for the 2008 presidential election.
The debate had no commercial cut-ins,
network editing, and reporters' interpretations. It made me giddy, not the stuff for preparing for sleep!
The candidates' views came from their own mouths, about oil
pipelines, infrastructure, and federal dollars. Listening intently as the debate questioners probed the views of each candidate, I felt a sense of sheer relief wash over me. How refreshing it is, my friends, to see and hear from candidates' own mouths, for yourself, answers and opinions free of interruption or commentary during a debate and after it.
Network analysis will continue to get my attention sometimes, I am sure. The major networks, including cable, will also cover debates, which are likely to run without interruption. They will, however, be followed by commentary and the same old back and forth.
However, C-Span will handle everything the same, without interruption and commentary, except for public call-ins. That is why C-Span is now my top choice for political coverage this year for all the reasons and reactions mentioned.
I appreciate more than ever what Brian Lamb did when he
launched C-Span decades ago, primarily to cover U. S. congressional sessions. Brian Lamb deserves many thanks, and I hope more viewers
will click on C-Span for political coverage.
Anyone with cable television service can use or request C-Span, where viewers can get the news less polluted by others' interpretations than anywhere else. You can form your own judgments about every candidate, hearing them speak
for themselves without editing or cut-ins.
You can think for yourself free of others' persuasion; study for yourself; learn for
yourself, using C-Span as one of many other resources like history books and
other facts-based records.
What an original source of political news, ideas, and discourse. What an original source for evaluating personal political choices this year. Go C-Span! |
