This post should be titled better press corp and better electorate please. This is because the two sides are at fault for how lousy the coverage of elections has been. The blame goes to the people who now thinks of politicians as entertainers and vice versa (if I hear another question about Noy and Shalani I’m going to puke.)
Where are we really. Let’s see.
We have the world’s longest ballot, with electronic elections that is unprecedented. We have 7.1 % unemployment rate. a 19.1% underemployment rate, we have what thousands of OFW in some of the most hostile social environments in the world, we have an education system in rambles, our general populace is scared whenever we see a check point. Our policemen/military can’t seem to understand that belonging to a political/ideological party is not a crime (bearing arms is). We have a few dozen warlords in the poorest provinces whose people are locked in a cycle of poverty , corruption and abuse.
And the question you would like to ask Villar is “Nakaligo ka na ba sa dagat ng basura?”. Fuck, you people have no right to claim being the Fourth Estate or rather it is sad that maybe this is what or how the fourth estate should be if left to the devices of people who do not have any noble belief towards their profession.
In a better world media should be asking Gibo what he has done as Department of Defense? What Gordon did with the ZTE-NBN deal investigation ? Executive success of Noy? and the Peace and Order understanding of Manny Villar?
PS :: Mild Migraines again so grain of salt guys.
PS1: Prior to the C5 road scams my problems with Villar is that our economy may do well with his stewardship but that the Ampatuans and other rumored warlord families would only strengthen their grasp.
Covering Washington like Kabul
Posted By Annie Lowrey
Tuesday, February 16, 2010 – 11:31 PM
On his New Yorker blog, George Packer takes aim at the “devastatingly unremarkable” bloviation of Beltway journos. He cites Washington Post columnist (and “dean” of the Washington press corps) David Broder’s analysis of a recent Sarah Palin speech as “[showing] off a public figure at the top of her game — a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself.” He also offers up the New York Times‘ Adam Nagourney’s coverage of a recent Republican leadership conference: “Here in Honolulu, the strains within the party over conservative principles versus political pragmatism played out in a sharp and public way.”
These two characterizations from two top writers for the United States’ two leading papers, Packer argues, are but purple guff — in the words of Michael Kelly, examples of how the “idea of image” is “faith in Washington.” The journalists follow the same, strange, well-worn routine. They take the mundane comings and goings of major political figures, interpret them according to prevailing partisan winds, and write them up in the overheated, undercooked language of a harlequin novel. The result is airy nonsense that fervently insists on its trenchancy.
Packer further demonstrates the absurdity of this journalistic convention by satirically recasting the Palin passage about Afghan President Hamid Karzai: “Speaking at the presidential palace in Kabul, Mr. Karzai showed himself to be at the top of his game. He skillfully co-opted his Pashtun base while making a powerful appeal to the technocrats.”
The point is that Washington coverage of major political figures is not just bizarre stylistically, but dead substantively. To discuss for hundreds of words how Palin is at the top of her game is to spend hundreds of words not discussing her actual relevance to the fractured conservative scene. Foreign correspondence on major political figures needs to be more explanatory than illlustrative — and it would be better if coverage of Washington were more like the clear-eyed, clean-written analysis of Kabul.
via Covering Washington like Kabul | FP Passport.