(the above is quote from today's New York Times)
Completely outside of my thoughts on the debate itself, I've found the media coverage to be just ...strange.
I've seen the above statement, in one iteration or another, in practically every major newspaper today. Yes, expectations for Palin were stupendously low, and yes, she exceeded them. But is this really all that matters? Lack of a "I read anything that's put in front of me"-level fuck-up?
I'm frustrated because I feel like all I'm reading about the debate is "well, neither of them doomed their ticket." I guess that in some ways, that really is all that it was about, given the VP's Constitutional lack of power (despite all signs to the contrary from Cheney), but they discussed a huge range of topics, and it seems like everyone who didn't watch and relies on the news for their information to inform their decision-making isn't getting much today.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As usual, I'm basically in complete agreement with you. An article I just read talked about how far we'd come (or fallen) since the Lincoln-Douglass debates.
ReplyDeleteThe real question is how to fix it or if it will ever go away. Anyone who mentioned to anyone that McCain confused border countries in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) is to blame. Anyone who mentions to anyone that last night Sarah Palin got the name of the commander in Afghanistan wrong is to blame. Anyone who mentioned that Barack Obama said we have 57 states is to blame. And anyone who pointed out that Joe Biden called paying higher taxes "patriotic" is to blame.
And I fit into all of those groups. When there's a news headline about a gaffe, I click on it, increasing the incentive to report them. So does everybody, whether they think the gaffe in question was relevant or not. And because of that, I don't think this is going to get better anytime soon.
One possible exception: my greatest hope of the Obama administration is that it will usher in an era of pro-intellectualism (speaking of disappointing statements), and that hopefully that will help us combat some of this but again, I don't see it going away anytime soon.
"my greatest hope of the Obama administration is that it will usher in an era of pro-intellectualism" = exactly, mine too.
ReplyDeleteI really think that most people know intellectually, but don't truly, viscerally understand how the things they worry about each day, the things that make their lives livable or horrible, are affected by policy. There's just so much to distract people from the simple fact that their lives are determined by policy, and policy is determined is determined by their vote.
If they did, I think there'd be an outcry for more than the "style over substance" campaigns we've grown accustomed to. I have no idea how to make every single person filter the political games of the campaigns and insanity of the media, and I don't think an Obama administration would be The Solution, but my hope is that it would be a step in the right direction.
side note: Did I use the correct form of "affected" here? Please educate me. I'm usually a stickler about grammar, and my confusion on this topic is a great source of embarrassment.
I like affected/effected. And in my opinion (here comes the statistician on grammar) I actually think either one could be correct here.
ReplyDeleteIf you meant "affected", which I think you did, you'd be saying that people do stuff, and the stuff they do is then modified by the policies in place.
If you meant "effected", then there's almost a reverse cause/effect situation, and you'd be saying something more like "the things people do are reactions to the policies in place."
In this case there's not much difference. My gut check on "effected" is to always say the sentence in my head, replacing "effected" with "brought about" or something similar. I don't know; don't trust me, trust these guys.
And I had a teacher (not for English) who was a real stickler on this, and would always pronounce them AY-ffected and EE-ffected, something I do in my head to this day.
The general rule I have always heard (and, as I am a Lemming (though that association is flawed), followed), is that affected is most often a verb while effect is most often a noun.
ReplyDeleteThat said, MW listed effect as a transitive verb, which gets us into the more dangerous (read: boring and technical) grammatical territory of exceptions! I think the distinction when seeking a verb is that when you want to directly bring about a change you effect it while if you want to influence an outcome you affect it.
Also, affect can be used as a noun when describing how someone else seems to feel; that is, when subjectively describing another person's apparent mood (e.g. He displayed a delighted affect). From what I understand, this usage of affect is archaic and/or jargony (I had to look it up to be sure, but jargony is a word).
I think you're basically in agreement with me, unless I am substantially missing something.
ReplyDeleteI always think of change being effected, as in "Sarah Palin has really effected change in terms of how stupid a VP pick could possibly be." More cliché but also more accurate would be a sentence like "Barack Obama has effected change in terms of how younger demographics view, and react to, politics."
And I can't tell if this is what your last paragraph was getting at or not, but there is also the adjective affected, which tends to mean arrogant or pretentious, as in "John Kerry turned off many independent voters in 2004 when he took such an affected tone toward George W. Bush."
That was not what I was getting at, but I like the addition. I was talking about the odd usage of affect in psychology (I think). I don't know if that is actually true, but I will look it up later and post the answer.
ReplyDelete