View Single Post
      10-23-2012, 01:19 PM   #8
MiddleAgedAl
First Lieutenant
21
Rep
326
Posts

 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Templar View Post
If the debates somehow changed who you were going to vote for, then you were pretty ignorant in the first place...
Problem with debates like that is, there are many dumb people who can be easily swayed by zingers and one liners, and they dont want to deeply analyze anything. People who outsource their own critical thinking to the media.

The media LOVES their soundbites, and so we get tons of coverage of stuff like the Binders comment, and now the bayonets and horses.

People get swayed by the sizzle rather than the steak.

Obamas own secretary of defense did in fact say that the proposed cuts would be devastating, but that gets a pass. Obama did not refute that assertion. But, that doesnt get extra airtime or sell papers, so now, what is stuck in the heads of casual observers is the idea that Romney is proposing to spend money they dont even want on stuff they cannot use like bayonets, horses, or their 21st century equivalent, which sounds wasteful and un-necessary. Not only is that a disingenous misrepresentation, but it critically skips over the fact that the alternative is not just an absence of supposedly unwanted equipment, but in fact cuts that would devastate the ability of the military to do it's job.

Sure, places like CNN do fact checking after, but much of the audience tunes out by then. I'd almost rather see them pre-tape it, do the fact checking, then when it is aired for the first time, they can pause it after big statements and provide some color commentary on the accuracy of the statements, so people dont end up basing their vote on whatever falsehood was the most soundbite-friendly and thus got the most attention in mainstream media.