Friday, August 23, 2013

The Candid Candidate?


A recent comment made by the President generated an arguably newsworthy mention on NPR today.  During a speech at Binghamton the President jested that as he was in his second term he was free to make controversial statements. 

What were these controversial statements you ask while sitting on the edges of your seats with your ears, well eyes, intently affixed to your computer screen?  Wait for it, you won’t believe it, the controversial statement was in regard to whether or not law schools should be altered from a three year to a two year course of study.  Do I hear crickets or was that just the sound of balloons being slowly deflated under your extreme disappointment?

NPR has opined that this represents a more “unbounded” President.  Given that the statements made following the self-proclaimed controversial nature were largely irrelevant to public discourse and lacked any political immediacy, one is inclined to wonder if there was a purpose behind this proclamation and why it presented a noteworthy recitation. 

Is the president gauging the reactions of people toward this new candid and “controversial” style?

Do the people want a candid, honest, and controversial president, one who will roll up their sleeves and tell the people what they don’t want to hear?

Are people just interested in hearing a politician acknowledge that in election cycles, politics and campaign rhetoric win over public discourse and honesty?

Or does the media seriously just have nothing better to report or too many immediate access news services to meaningfully fulfill?

Seriously people, what’s the point; is there one?  Just wondering. 

1 comment:

  1. First of all, I think that NPR is amazing. They have a lot of great informational shows and they are all usually interesting. Also, great descriptions and great blogging technique when it comes to engaging the reader. I want to address one of the questions you pose- all of which every American should be asking about any leader in a persuasive and powerful position. I think that the initial and main reason of journalism is to uncover the faults of persuasive and powerful institutions and people. Yes, you may think government as first, but this also includes things like education and other types of institutions that aren't usually acknowledged. I think that the media isn't filling its shows with nothing better to report, but I think they are trying to bring knowledge and insight to a world that -surprisingly- many Americans have no idea what is going on and this is a huge part of America's roots. I find it surprising as an American to know that most Americans do not know the basic setup of government much less the processes and what is actually happening in government right now. As a Communication major interested in political sciences, I take for granted that I know and want to know so much about media and politics, but unfortunately many Americans don't. I think the media recognizes that and is trying to bring to light some of the faults and functions of government in today's society.

    ReplyDelete