Oh, so this is where the whole "dog" promise comes in! It was alluded to Barack's acceptance speech from Bryant Park, and a slew of follow up articles about the puppy.
Of course, it begins with the traditional Ellen dance number. As fun as this is to watch, it really makes me think about the role of politicians as entertainers. I mena, let's be honest, no one goes on Ellen's show to debate. An appearance there is dancing during your intro, and getting some jabs in --- it takes into account the difference between shows meant to entertain and shows with a greater responsibility to the public (like Jon Stewart's point with Crossfire.) However, please don't consider the above a passive-aggressive punch at Ellen's show! I think Ellen is great to watch when I just want to get some funnies in. I would not watch Ellen to get a thorough vetting of my candidate.
With McCain and Palin all up on SNL that one week, I wonder how fair it is to expect our political leaders to entertain the public, as well as serve them. Of course, I understand that it's advantageous and strategic to make these appearances on entertainment venues...I'm sure it garners the young and "people who like to laugh" votes. I really question whether it is realistic to assume that our political leaders have the added responsibility of entertaining us while they're on the campaign trail? Should that be the basis of a candidate's likability/"relatable-ness" factor?
Upon further investigation, I found some FCC rules about candidates and airtime. It says:
Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.
If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this section. No obligation is hereby imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate.
So, the above just basically says, equal air time is necessary for all candidates over the course of that channel's programming. But, I'm not sure if potential first ladies count in that equation--- do they mean the candidate her/himself, or is it anyone affiliated with her/him? If not, then I guess it was to the Obama campaign's advantage that Michelle is articulate, and has opinions along with a basic understanding of how the country works with a JD in her pocket. (Frankly, I can't remember Cindy McCain contributing much gainful insight throughout the GOP's campaign, but I also didn't follow much of McCain.) Another thing that the FCC regulation above made me think about was the under-representation of other candidates in this process: the Mike Gravel "not enough money" scandal during the Democratic debates, as well as not granting Nader, McKinney, and other presidential write-ins network presence during the 2008 Elections.
Anyway, I get it. As a candidate, more television time equals more press time. I mean, it only helped Obama to privately purchase a 30 minute block to air his special. But, I think it seems a bit unrealistic and selfish to want our politicians to dazzle us with charm, versus policy. We're in an economic crisis, y'all! I'd rather my president be working on the budget, creating jobs for the unemployed, and universalizing health care as opposed to cranking the funnies on SNL. But that's just me.
HOW DO YOU FEEL?
Do you think that a potential candidate's chances increase or decrease during these kinds of entertaining media appearances? Should they continue to use this method as a tactical method in a political campaign to garner votes?
Please leave comments below! (no account required!)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment