Return to site

Debased Debate

I didn't watch. Since there is no way on earth I could be persuaded to vote for Trump unless the question were "which American politician should be the next one to suffer a fatal coronary thrombosis," I felt my time would be better spent catching up on Season 11 of The Curse of Oak Island.

One of my primary news sources is Heather Cox Richardson, a historian from Maine whose daily commentary on the past day's events should be required reading for everyone. She watches shit like presidential debates so that I don't have to. One would suppose that this is the purpose of most news media, but, as my firend Stephen Kottler responded when I pointed this out to him, "the purpose of the media is to make money, as you know."

In today's post, Heather Cox Richardson seems outraged and baffled that the media's and pundits' reactions to last night's shitshow focus on what they call Joe Biden's "disastrous" performance because he spoke softly and mumbled and knew what he was talking about, talked about it coherently, and told the truth, as contrasted with Trump, who did precisely the opposite in every respect. Which confirms me in my decision of long ago to pay as little attention as possible to so-called political "coverage" by so-called political "journalists."

Another one of my favorite sources of opinion , political scientist Ed Burmila of Gin and Tacos, put it succinctly and well in a tweet: "[I]t's perfectly fine to love yourself enough not to watch debates. You do not have a civic obligation to make yourself mad. It isn't going to help anything but the ratings of media outlets that desperately want Trump back and are happy to debase themselves to make it happen."