Watch CBS Videos Online

tapmag thinks that the Eurovision Song Contest is a far too complex concept to be understood in American terms of entertainment shows. Americans watch American Idol to see good acts and funny rejection clips. Europeans tune in to Eurovision for a lot of reasons, but not to discover awe-inspiring new singers.

We want pseudofolkloristic bands in nonsense costumes, eurotrash glam from the Balkans, a sense of socially shared television moments that has been long gone since the Internet arrived, and of course one of the last places being reserved for Germany.

The Eurovision Song Contest is meta-show that allows us Europeans to reflect on our own awkward cultural backgrounds, giving us a chance to come to terms with the lowbrow elements of European culture. By laughing about our neighbors’ ridiculous ideas of a good show, we establish connections that foster understanding and solidarity which transcends borders.

But of course, it’s far easier to denounce this expression of humility, humanity and the understanding of dignity that arises from it as the simple lack of musical talent. Kent Jones, a little humbleness suits everyone, especially Americans.

Yesterday, public broadcaster Das Erste started airing “Satire Gipfel” (full video), which replaced the slightly more bearable “Scheibenwischer” that ended its 28 year run last year. The makers, who apparently had difficulties coming up with a grammatically correct name for their show, wanted to move away from the “SPD cabaret” that “Scheibenwischer” supposedly practised. They’re off to a bad start.

“Congratulations, you’ve won a new satire show,” show runner Mathias Richling opened. Yes, apparently we should be grateful that Das Erste is spending our license fees on such a astute show. The inaugural issue of “Satire Gipfel” featured five performers, ranging in quality from bad to worse.

After the ailing Ingolf Lück, who back in the 90s moderated the pretty funny “Wochenshow“, spent roughly ten minutes on the Abwrackprämie (exciting stuff!), “up and coming”  comedian Philip Weber quickly returned us to the constant of German satire: U.S.-bashing!

Examples: “At last, the American troops are returning home from Iraq. If they find their way back!” or “A plane crashed into the Hudson River and no one blamed Al Qaeda. Under Bush, everyone would have said that those were Islamic  suicide-geese!” Ha, ha! Too bad that it did happen under Bush because this story is over two-months-old news. It got a little bit better afterwards, but only because Weber “borrowed” Chris Rock’s “bullet control” sketch from 1999.

Richling saved the evening from total disaster with an acceptable impression of Germany’s new minister for the economy zu Guttenberg. During the show, the director made a point of constantly cutting to Ulla Schmidt, the health minister sitting in the front row, who was apparently enjoying herself, a sure sign that the makers didn’t do their job properly.

“Satire Gipfel” was followed by alleged late night show “Schmidt & Pocher”, hosted by Oliver Pocher, who is actually pretty good a spoofing popular culture, and Harald Schmidt, who is supposed to be pretty good at spoofing politics but who has long passed his date of expiry. Pocher will leave the show in April, so that Schmidt, in the words of producer Fred Kogel, can reach his “full potential” in the election year 2009, making a show with “sophistication and intellect, comparable to Jon Stewart“.  Only problem is that Schmidt returns from his summer break  on September 17th, ten days before the election to the Bundestag.

Das Erste’s main competitor, ZDF, also a public broadcaster, airs the monthly “Neues aus der Anstalt“, where hosts and guests play patients and doctors of a mental hospital who comment on the madness outside their walls. It really sounds funnier than it is.

The only decent satire outing on German TV, extra 3, is buried on the regional channel NDR, ironically airing on the same time slot as “Satire Gipfel”.

So what’s stopping people from producing a fun and politically relevant show? And it’s not like there isn’t enough material to work with. We also have two 24h cable news channels (n-tv and N24) and two business news channels (Bloomberg and Deutsches Anleger Fernsehen). Plus, one edition of “Anne Will” should keep even a moderately gifted satirist busy for a week.

Instead, politics are most likely to blame. German politicians treat the public broadcaster like their own private press office, as exemplified by the current dispute over Nikolaus Brender, news director of the ZDF. CDU forces under the leadership of Hesse’s governor Roland Koch want Brender out, ostensibly due to declining ratings of the news programs. Critics say Koch wants to install a CDU-friendly person as Brender’s replacement.

That’s actually not as shocking as it should be. It is common practise that the big parties, who sit on the boards of the public broadcasters, divide influential positions between them. It is only due to Koch’s ineptness at doing so that this turned into a public spectacle.

So it’s understandable that few people inside the broadcasters have an interest in hard-hitting satire. After all, angering your party-aligned overlords is bad for the career.

Die Tagesschau rühmt sich derweil, das Video mit den letzten Minuten des Täters nicht gezeigt zu haben – wohl aber ein verstörtes junges Mädchen – während das ZDF erklärt, das “Fälschen im Internet kinderleicht” sei (Video). Na sowas. Fast alle Medien haben inzwischen Fotos des Täters, Bilder seines Elternhauses, nennen teilweise die Adresse eben jenen Hauses, und Bild schießt wie immer den Vogel ab und druckt am Tag nach dem Amoklauf Bilder angeblicher Opfer (!!).

Viele Politiker ergehen sich ganz betroffen in Verbotsideen – Sportwaffen verbieten, Ballerspiele verbieten, Einlasskontrolle an Schulen. Einige dieser Ideen mögen sinnvoll sein, doch die tieferen Ursachen einer solchen Tat berühren sie nicht. Wie es mit 17 war, daran können sich viele scheinbar nicht mehr erinnern.

Die “richtigen” Journalisten haben trotzdem nichts besseres zu tun, als auf den “Pöbel” (stern) zu schimpfen, der seine ungefilterte Meinung und – oh schreck! – unbestätigte Gerüchte über Twitter und andere Plattformen verbreitet. Das machen die “seriösen” Medien natürlich nicht. Dem ist eigentlich nichts hinzuzufügen, doch einige haben es immer noch nicht kapiert.

Nachtrag, 16.3.: Die letzten Tage reichten offenbar nicht zur Selbstreflektion. Der Spiegel setzt nochmal einen drauf, mit Tim K. auf dem Titel. Wenn das mal keine verantwortungsvolle Berichterstattung ist. Natürlich aus reinem Informationsinteresse, nicht etwa aus Voyeurismus (siehe Bild 3 und 4). Da sind die Fotografen des Spiegels nämlich viel besonnener als andere Medienvertreter. Man weiß zu berichten:

“Am Freitagmorgen kam es dort [an dem Ort, wo die Opfer aufgebahrt waren] nach Polizeiangaben zu einem pietätlosen Vorfall: ‘Reporter versuchten, sich den Särgen zu nähern’, sagt [der Leiter der Kriminalpolizei Waiblingen] Michelfelder. ‘Es kam zu sehr unschönen Momenten.’”

Gut, dass der Spiegel sich dem nicht angeschlossen hat. Oder so ähnlich.

Nachtrag, 21.5.: Der Presserat hat die Bild-Zeitung und Bild Online für ihre sensationsheischende und pietätlose Berichterstattung gerügt. Meiner Meinung nach hätte praktisch jede zweite deutschsprachige Zeitung und/oder deren Internetableger eine Rüge vertragen. Aber die Bild, immerhin.

As we now hear Starbucks will be closing more than 600 stores in the US alone, which probably no one will even notice because they have more than 10,000 of them over here.

That said, I have to add that I really feel for the 1000 people losing their already underpaid jobs. But it also shows that there is not unlimited demand for ever the same products. I admit that it gereally makes sense to have chain stores in some respect. But it also makes traveling (and living) so not exciting at times, because it kills cultural particularities.

Her comes a sermon by Reverend Billy, founder of the Church of Stop Shopping, getting the word out to the masses on Fox Biz News:

“Capitalism isn’t necessarily the same as Freedom.”…eat this Sister Rebecca! Although my favorite part is when he says that their coffee “isn’t that great”. That’s a good one.

So you can argue if Rev. Billy is taking it all a bit too far, or if Rebecca Gomez has ever given anything she said a thought – at all. Yet, one thing is for sure: supporting independent businesses is a thing we could probably all agree on.

If you do, then you can start on Sunday by showing up in New York’s East Village:

AuH2O is not only local and independent – it’s fashion with an attitude. Kate Goldwater (hence the name: Au=gold H2O=water) is a feminist, a friend of the environment, a soccer player and a sweetheart. Learn more about her store, her fashion and herself on her new blog: blog.auh2odesigns.com and come out for fashion coffee and music this weekend. I’ll be there…

By Semir (double post)

• Tapmag: So you’re an American living in Berlin?

Jan Burdinski: No, I’m a Berliner who thinks America is great, and who always stood for a strong foreign and security policy, with a very clear fiscal policy, meaning less taxes.

• tapmag: Traditionally, Republicans have some problems abroad. Aren’t you always the underdog?

Burdinski: It varies. Gallup conducted a survey for the 2004 election and in South Korea, Poland and Bulgaria, Bush would have won against Kerry. He would have lost in Germany. We’re not doing this out of opportunism but because we believe in certain issues. If 90% of the people here think Obama will be elected President, as 90% thought Kerry would become President, I’ll just say, okay. Let’s see on the evening of November 4th and then the White House will be ours after all.

• tapmag: Let’s wait for Florida.

Burdinski: I had a conversation with a Democrat a short while ago and she said, “I’m a Hillary Democrat and I will never ever vote for Obama.” That’s great, I wouldn’t vote for him either, but then I also wouldn’t vote for Hillary. He’s been in the Senate for three and a half years, has relatively little experience. Someone from Deutsche Welle called me and asked, “What’s your comment on him coming to Germany?” I said, it’s about time. If he wants to be President, someday he should talk to the important international partners.

• tapmag: What about McCain, is he coming?

Burdinski: McCain will visit Europe before Election Day, and will of course talk with France, England and Germany. He had been traveling in Latin America. Why? Immigration is an important issue and Obama has shown that he doesn’t reach Latino voters, they all went for Hillary. Now there’s ground to claim. If Blacks all vote for Obama, and Latinos for McCain, they’re about equal and it comes down to the still white majority. Especially in the big, red corridor, the “Flyoverland”, as it is arrogantly called, Republicans are still doing very well.

• tapmag: So you’re still optimistic?

Burdinski: There’s going to be a bloodbath in the Senate and the House of Representatives, but I believe we will keep the White House. America is not ready to elect a black President.

• tapmag: Race is still the deciding factor?

Burdinski: McCain won’t make it an issue, and I think it’s good that way, but there are going be groups somewhere that say, “Guys, think about it.” And there’s going to be people who won’t even think about it and just say, “We won’t vote for a black guy.” That’s regrettable, but true.

• tapmag: How important are the American expats for the presidential election, how strongly do you have to court the Americans living in Germany?

Burdinski: We have a series of states that are hugely important, like Ohio, which I believe was decided by one or one and half percentage points last time. It was somewhere around 150,000 votes. There are far more expats than those who have voted, so even here one can make a difference. I would encourage every American, regardless of how he’ll vote, to register and exercise his right to vote. Afterwards we’ll fight over who he will vote for.

• tapmag: Thank you.

———

• tapmag: Why all the enthusiasm for Obama?

Jerry Gerber: Obama is now a kind of household item, like Tempo, he is very popular. He might disappoint some people, sure, but at the moment he’s what attracts people.

• tapmag: Is he comparable to any other Democratic presidential candidate?

Gerber: Kennedy, maybe, something new after Eisenhower, who wasn’t a bad president but older. I don’t know if there are others, Clinton, partially, his campaign is 1992 was also based on this slogan, “something new, at last something new”. But there is something else because for the first time an African American could move into the White House. That always plays a role.

• tapmag: The Republican we talked to said this might be a fact that prevents Obama from reaching the White House, that America is not ready for a black president.

Gerber: You could also say that McCain doesn’t reach many Americans because America is not ready for an old president, he’s 72. Or a continuation of the last eight years. I don’t know whether America is ready for a black president, whether it is mature enough. And Obama always says , “it’s unimportant. My color is not important.” It might matter for some people but for him it’s not important. And he’s right. It’s not about electing a black president, but about ending a period of bad presidents. That’s what’s it about. A new era is coming. Whether a white, half-white, green, brown or black man sits in the White House is not important.

• tapmag: What role do the expats play?

Gerber: A big role. Of course you could say that we only play a big role if we have voters from the famous swing states. Most of us are from states like New York, New Jersey, California…

• tapmag: Not exactly swing states…

Gerber:…California is not a swing state, New York isn’t any more. New Jersey not really either. Some are from Florida, but that’s not important. Apart from the fact that it is a duty to go and vote it is possible that all voter abroad together have an effect, even in the Electoral College. Obama plays a big role here. Because he stood in the primaries, the interest in this campaign has been huge. Many people are Democrats and said that they now want to vote. They wanted to vote in the primaries. Many of them did not vote before. They used their passport to travel to the States but forgot to vote. But now they do. I believe there’s going to be a huge number of voters in November.

• tapmag: Did you have an influx of new members at Democrats Abroad?

Gerber: Yes, many new people, people we didn’t have before. We now have a group of young people, we tried that before but it never worked. We now have many events that we didn’t have before. Granted, it’s got a lot do with the campaign, but everything is lively now.

• tapmag: What’s your strategy to reach members, especially when it’s about convincing them to go and vote. What do you do, do you write them?

Gerber: We have lists, but not of all Americans in Berlin. There are 20,000 of them, we don’t have that many in our lists. But we go where they might gather. For example, we have flyers at cinemas like Odeon, Babylon in Kreuzberg, Hackesche Höfe or at cafes. We are also trying to be there when there are events. When there’s a gathering of people, we’re there and distribute flyers or buttons. We sell or sometimes give away stuff, that we have to pay for by ourselves. We have a little money for advertisements, we put two of them in the Ex-Berliner. We try to go to people and rely on them to tell their German or American friends, “Hey, there’s a meeting at…”

• tapmag: When Obama is coming to Berlin, what’s his motivation? Is it about demonstrating that he is knowledgeable in international relations?

Gerber: Yeah, sure. He also sits on the Committee for Foreign Relations in the Senate and it’s normal for a Senator on this committee to make trips abroad. But certainly it is useful for campaign to show his compatriots that he’s traveling abroad. He apparently also wants to visit Jordan and Israel, also France, Great Britain and Germany – Berlin. He going to talk to Chancellor Merkel. And it probably won’t hurt if he’s photographed here, in front of the Brandenburg Gate. It can only help the Brandenburg Gate, and maybe him as well.

• tapmag: Thank you.

Gerber: One thing at the end: I don’t want to be Vice President.

It’s basically the story of a desperate superhero indulging in alcoholic beverages. So this guy hates his job – but keeps doing it anyway – to the point that the people of Los Angeles wish him to New York City because he usually leaves a big mess every time he’s on a mission. Finally he meets this publicist played by Jason Bateman who wants to help him gain popularity by (among other things) talking him into voluntarily going to jail .

So much for the neat idea and fun part of the movie. I’ll leave out the part in which they find out that the publicist’s wife is actually also a superhero and they both get mortal because of their physical closeness and all that crap.

So the reason for this blog entry is the funny but plausible question that Colbert poses:

The movie is opening shortly before the 4th of July. Is this possibly a metaphor for the USA using their superpowers but messing up so everyone gets mad at them?

Good point! Will Smith wouldn’t approve, though… what a sissy!

Both Mr. Smith and the American government should probably sit down with Joan Jett and take on a little of her attitude – or better yet: do a good job!
(This goes for both summer movies and foreign policy.)

By Semir (double post)

Witty and politically incorrect – only on TV

The series beared unexpected turns, witty remarks and wonderfully politically incorrect actions. All this has gotten lost in the transition to the cinema screen. In the place of explicit talks there is name-dropping to an almost unbearable level. When Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) does a photo shoot, minutes are spend just hearing designer names. It is true that fashion has always been a very important part of the series, but this is an overdose even for fans. It makes the whole movie seem like a two-hour-exodus to the home shopping channel, only thing missing is the blinking „order here“ button. This degrades the women who have been watching every episode addictively and have grown to love the characters to mere credit card holders.

The Shoes More Important Than The Story

The plot couldn’t keep up with the wardrobe. And, yes, this does contain a flaw in this case. The plot is so thin that you know it all just from watching the two-minute preview. The preview also gives away about one and a half hours of the movie’s time, and the little surprises that come up cannot make up for this. The storyline is so disrupted that one can hardly follow it. Location changes serve as a replacement for plot turns. This is not what the TV series deserved.

The characters and their actions remain superficial and sometimes incomprehensible. One has to remember, this movie is obviously made for those who know the series (otherwise you would have trouble following it). These women know the characters, and have followed them over years. In a way, the four ladies have become the „good friends who moved to the big city“ for their audience. Living a life more extravagant than them, but coming back to tell of it every Thursday night.

This deep understanding of the characters is violated in the movie. The character development is minimal, and where action occurs, it is left unexplained. How the writing team did not manage to come up with a more coherent plot remains a mystery – after all, they had more than enough time for it, as the movie has been in planning for years. This is extremely unfortunate and probably the biggest flaw of this film.

Back to Where it All Started

The second flaw is the ending. I do not want to give too much away here, but it is unfitting for a movie whose main character makes sure to state that fairy tales don’t happen in real life. It is also unfitting for its audience, which expected a more grown-up solution of the ever-ongoing story of Carrie and Mister Big. Suddenly, everything turns out along the lines of happily ever after.

I had read bad reviews before and blamed them on the reviewer being a man and not knowing about the fascination that is Sex and the City. But unfortuntaley, I have to agree. This movie will be a disappointment to those who have come to love the series. The characters are neglected in favor of big designer names. But in the end, even Manolo Blahnik stilettos cannot carry an entire movie alone.

By Jessica Binsch

The package was bound to go to NBC’s headquarters; the Zip code and street address were incorrect, so it reached the network with a little delay. The parcel contained 27 quicktime-files with videos of Cho, several pictures and a collection of his writings. Cho signed with „A Ishmael“ and returned to the Blacksburg campus to murder another 30 people before shooting himself.

NBC went on to air parts of Cho Seung-Hui’s “Multimedia Manifesto” – a decision which has been widely attacked, as well as it has been defended. What guided the editors at the Rockefeller Center to impart those disturbing communications of a multiple murderer? Why are the decisions of TV producers still relevant in the age of the Internet video? And when does Cho become too much Cho?

Cho’s Drama Plan

At first glance, a lot of things speak against releasing the package. There is the intention of the killer. Cho wanted stardom; he was granted prominence. Do you remember the name of the Jewish Holocaust survivor who got killed because he tried to protect his students against Cho’s gunfire? Hardly anyone does. Cho’s face is well-known, however. The extensive media coverage blessed him with a virtual after-life. He is now forever engraved in history with a gun in his hands, pointing at the camera. With the help of a sensationalist media, eager to draw attention with all measures possible, the former outsider finally received all the attention he wanted.

The multi-media package that Cho sent out was packed with all the sparkling and shiny accessories needed to create a visual wallpaper for the reports about his killing spree. Needless to say, Cho’s face became the background to endless re-runs of the same news during the first days of coverage. The networks cheerfully accepted Cho’s gift and plastered their virtual studio walls with his videos, notes and photographs. Cho was everywhere – his ubiquity became possible because NBC acted accordingly to Cho’s drama plan. The last act of the Cho Show had begun.

The drama was so intense, the victims’ families could not sit through. Several of them refused to give interviews to NBC, after learning about the video, because they felt focus was on the wrong person. To them, NBC kept fueling their pain, unnecessarily exacerbating their grief with gory pictures. Where the public should hear about the lives taken, the news told the story of the Grim Reaper.

In fact, news stories which focuse extensively on a killer have serious consequences. There is evidence for a vicious cycle of copycat killings that is triggered by excessive media coverage of rampages like the one at Virginia Tech. Revealing too much Cho leads to more Cho. Clearly a reason not to air his manifesto, because it could cause more madness, pain and harm.

In this context, consider the following statement:“The massacre at Virginia Tech is newsworthy and it is the media’s job to report on it, but we believe the media have a responsibility to balance the public’s need to know against the potential danger of provoking copycat behavior. The APA urges, for the public good, that all media cease airing the graphic Cho materials.” American Psychiatric Association, News Release 07-25

Why airing the video was correct

To further judge the consequences which society faces if such videos are shown, let’s contrast them to the opposite situation. Let’s consider the public debate without the video; a big mess of false accusations, immature judgments and wild guesses on the nature of the killer. The debate most likely would evolve around one inevitable question – what made him do it? Everybody will have an opinion, and surely everything will get blamed, from video games to the social pecking order that exists at every college.

Well, Cho himself provided the answer. He even videotaped it. Cho’s mediated remains, full of paranoia and mad ramblings, are a clear proof of his insanity. The videos make one point; the quest to understand the killer’s motives cannot be accomplished. They demonstrate how unpreventable the Virginia Tech shooting was. Cho was mad.

If this type of information is out there, can we blame journalists for making it available to the public? It’s an obligation hard to dismiss. Censorship is out of the question; there is no legal rule that held the editors back. For good reason, the flow of information should be free, especially for news of such value. But what about self-censorship?

Even the victims were undecided

Unarguably, there are a few more things to consider than a well-informed society. Journalists have to weigh up the positive aspects of publication against the dignity of the victims and the personal feelings of anyone affected. Relatives, friends and co-students of those who got killed might be offended by the pictures of the killer. However, even this group was discordant about the video. Some parents canceled interviews. Others were glad that the release of the material gave them a face to stick to the madness, an enemy to focus on. But, only because the video was out there did it become possible to take these stances. Irrespective of the individual stand, the opportunity to form an opinion should not be denied to the public. Seen in this light, the decision to air the video was correct.

How did NBC respond to this dilemma?

“To me there was never a debate. This was news. This is journalism. The debate was, how can we pare back, be as sensitive as possible in editing all of this garbage and profanity, to give a sense of what we have here.“ Brian Williams, Anchorman of NBC Nightly News

NBC decision was to release only parts of the package. Following the initial airing, most of the bigger news broadcasts used the material to visualize their news shows. They did however decide to cut back on the usage of Cho’s face after the warning from the American Psychiatric Association that copy-cat killings might be triggered. Only very few, mainly foreign news shows resisted the temptation in the first place and limited themselves to stills and a description of the videos. But regardless of these efforts, the information was out there. For a couple of days, Cho occupied the US’ TV screens.

No Choice Left for NBC?

Was there really a choice to the editors? Quite frequently, video or pictures of newsworthy events make headlines. Before Cho’s “multi-media manifesto” there was Saddam’s execution, the decapitation of American journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan and the Abu Ghraib prison photos. Most of these documents reach the public through various channels – National TV, Blogs, Satellite TV, YouTube. While networks can decide to show certain parts and to blank out the explicit stuff, they are well aware that the viewers can find the uncut version with the click of their mouse. The mainstream media has long lost their role as gatekeepers of information to the Internet.

Still, a difference remains between broadcasting to the world and uploading to the net. TV producers provide entertainment; their viewers do not actively search for all the gruesome details. YouTube viewers do, it takes an active effort to find the video there. On TV, the video simply comes on after your favorite afternoon talk show is over. This is why NBC bleeped out all of Cho’s swear words. After all, there might be children in front of the TV. With the bleep the TV producers acknowledged that they are not free of any responsibility, in contrast to the unanymous masses on the net. TV broadcasts aim to attract the most attention, but are not allowed to do so at any cost.

No More “Gore”-ification

Everything Cho said and recorded can turn up on the net. He will find an audience there, hungry for relics of yet another serial killer. But “gore”-ifying Cho on TV? This crosses the moral boundaries society draws with licensing TV stations. It simply is the wrong response to a tragedy. It is important and necessary to give a face to the unthinkable. It is irresponsible to let the face take over. TV has to deliver a frame to what happens on the screen. When Cho points his gun to the camera, then this is more than a great scene to use as a teaser for the evening news. These documents are part of a larger story that needs to be told in full view.

Editors have to scale down these larger than life clips. Show the videos, but also show the bigger picture. Put Cho in context – because that is what his monstrous crime is asking for. Explain the psychological mechanism behind the videos. They should be presented as an isolated element in the story that demands reflection, by viewers and producers alike. And broach the issue of media ethics itself. There is no better place to release some air out of Cho’s megalomaniac self-depictions than the TV. Editors just need to find the valve.

By Kolja Langnese

The role SNL takes on in the nomination process is an incredible example for the way political debates are being turned into entertainment in the U.S. at the moment. At the same time however, it’s an incredible example how political issues are permeating the entertainment sector, creating a new arena for public discourse. There simply is no retreat to hide from the debate over Hillary vs. Barack.

While the traditional news media is busy analysing the electability of Obama in key states and commenting on Hillary’s risk of being hurt by a badly timed remark from Bill, SNL is stealing the show. Here, questions are raised about the news media’s fascination for Barack Obama. Here, the 3am phone call ad is put into context. Here, the candidates can establish themselves as a real person with – shocking – a real personality.

In contrast, on CNN and its counterparts the candidates are treated as abstract entities. They are equations, composed of surveys, polls, demographics and, well, momentum. To the pundits it’s a horse race for the right formula to win over public opinion. They miss just one point; to the public it’s a highly engaging debate about the future of America. Thank god, the writer’s strike is history. Otherwise we would miss the full spectrum of perspective TV can offer.

By Kolja (double post)