My Prediction For the US Election

Well, here goes. Let's just put it out there. I predict that Barack will get 379 electoral votes, and John McCain will get 156. It's probably more likely that he'll get 364 (I'm being optimistic about his chances in Georgia) to John's 171, but hey, why not? As for the popular vote, my guess is that he'll get 49%. Any takers?

Drudge Report: our One Great Hope?

Last week, my friend Tom and I engaged in an interesting discussion on the nature and perception of media bias. We both agree that bias is rampant in the media, but our opinions diverged on the degree to which some media outlets show their bias. I, for one, believe that Fox News shows its right-of-center bias to a greater degree than, say, CNN (with its left-of-center leanings). Tom had an interesting point that, because of my very own left-of-center political bent, I am less able to perceive CNN's slant as I am able to perceive Fox News's.  I think there may be some truth to that argument, but then again, I am not incapable of perceiving the bias of those news institutions which are more decidedly left-wing, such as MSNBC.

For example, take the three most prominent news aggregators on the web (in order of prominence): The Drudge Report, The Huffington Post, and Hinessight. You, dear reader, are no doubt familiar with Matt Drudge's news aggregation website. Made famous by scooping the biggest story of its day (the Clinton/Lewinski sex scandal), The Drudge Report has an uncanny ability to scoop even the biggest news institutions. For this reason, this is my number one web-based news source. However, Drudge's leanings are decidedly right-of-center, which is manifested in the articles he headlines and gives the most attention to. It is easy to see, for example, that he is not a supporter of the global warming movement, based on the scope of articles he features, and the headlines he gives such articles.

The Huffington Post is another well-known establishment, but given its ties to Hollywood, and the sheer breadth of left-wing contributors, there is (or should be) no claim of objectivity here. Everyone knows what the HuffPo stands for.

But Hinessight is a different model. Labeling itself the Anti-Drudge Report, this website presents mainly news articles in a similar format to Matt Drudge's website. And instead of doing a more professional Drudge Report, this website wears its colours (royal blue) on its sleeve. For instance, it was very easy for even the casual reader to discern this website's support for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in the primaries. Once Obama got the nom, the aggregator was in the tank for Obama, with articles highlighting the Chicago Senator's brave political battle, while fending off attacks from an angry McCain, or the Christian Right... that sort of thing.

So my first question to Tom is, if I'm able to perceive the left-wing bias of institutions like MSNBC and Hinessight.com, would I not be qualified to expound on the relative degree to which these institutions show their bias?

I certainly don't think that the level of bias in each organization is the same. The degree of objectivity is only as high as the organization's commitment to professionalism. And news organizations will only strive for professionalism if we demand it of them. I think CNN and Drudge Report, while coming from opposite places politically, are the the news sources with the most amount of promise. It would only take a little bit of tweaking to render these outlets bias-free (well, as bias-free as possible). Neither have attained that level of respectability, but they could. I don't mean by throwing in a Republican pundit to balance your views (CNN), but to maintain high standards in reporting which news enthusiasts like me demand. Unfortunately, drama begets ratings, and so the clowns at MSNBC and FOX will continue to dominate the airwaves (not to mention other clowns like CNN's Lou Dobbs et al).

Perhaps we will one day receive our news from robots who are truly objective. Until then, can the media closest to the center please get its shit together?

Religulous... religicule?

I recently took in the new documentary Religulous by comedian/TV host Bill Maher. The film tackles an important subject: the role of religion in society. Let me be more specific. The film is an essay denouncing the role religion has played in society. It doesn't so much pose the question "has religion been a force for good in the world?" as it provides the answer. And that answer is decidedly no. At least according to Bill Maher. While I feel that the question has merit, the discussion is too important to be left in Bill's hands.

In a recent interview with Larry King, Bill said that the issue of religion was his white whale. I confess that I haven't read Melville's magnum opus, but something tells me that Captain Ahab would have given a lot more care to his passion project than Bill Maher has. I confess myself disappointed.

Bill should be praised for tackling a subject that everyone is too afraid to talk about, and considering the fates of Salmon Rushdie and Theo van Gogh, this is not surprising. But if you're going to walk through that sacred threshold, why not do it properly?

Bill approaches interviews with intellectual vigor, dwarfing his subjects with his usual condescending mien. And his interviewees are not exactly the creme of the crop. With the exception of one scientist who represented the Human Genome Project (standing in for the pro-religion side), Mr. Maher's cast includes a host of intellectually bankrupt characters (also standing in for the pro-religion side). We're talking the congregation at a truck stop chapel, the Jesus character at the local religious theme park (one of two we visit), and the hip hop artist Propa Ghandi, to name a few.

Mr. Maher wasted an opportunity to pursue rigorous intellectual debate on the matter, which I would have welcomed. There was not a single interview with a doctor of theology (if we don't count the self-styled 'doctor' preacher, who didn't actually have a degree). The movie isn't really a debate at all. It's a platform for his views. Call it agnosticism, atheism, secular humanism, whatever... the movement has millions of sympathizers all over the world. And this movie is for them. What a wasted opportunity to start a public debate.

The film is not without its merits. Bill Maher has some interesting and (again) important things to say. To bad he's preaching to the converted.

Negative Campaigning

A lot of people have said they're tired of the rhetoric currently flowing across the airwaves from campaign to campaign, and I agree. I'm tired of it, and I'm disappointed. But never surprised. As much as I sometimes wish the legislators would outlaw the practice, I know this is an impossibility.

The fact of the matter is, negative campaigning works. Why it works--when we all know how often politicians tell the truth, especially during a campaign, and especially about the other guy--is beyond me. No one likes it. For starters, those of us on the opposite side of the ideological divide are further ostracized from the offending opponent (and potential victor). Furthermore, it breeds distrust and bipartisanship. So it's really disappointing to see negative campaigning come out from these two candidates: one who has a history of crossing the aisle, and the other who had run on the idea of bringing people together.

However, it is rather humourous to me when people in one camp rage against the attacks against their candidate, but ignore (and often support) the attacks going towards the other candidate. It is mind-boggling how obtuse this is. If McCain often lies about about his opponent (and he does), is it conceivable, in some crazy plot to stay competitive, the Obama lies about McCain too? (Um, he does).

Again, the shame of the situation is that it has to happen at all. I suppose it's just poor strategy to ignore a well-known and highly-effective tool. Still, it would be nice if someone took the upper hand. Unfortunately, if your opponent (or your opponent's supporters) doesn't take the upper hand, you will have to fight fire with fire, or risk being swift-boated, as John Kerry was in the 2004 election.

The vicious cycle of negative campaigning begins with the candidate who's behind, and I make no secret that I believe John McCain started it this time around. With the Democrats favoured to win from early on, John had to attack Obama's weaknesses, and so he did. And Obama, in order to level the playing field and prevent himself from getting swift-boated, had to fire back. It's a shame, but once the gloves are off, you have to decide if you're going to run, slap, or punch back.

That's not to say that the Democrats don't know how to put out negative ads. Just look at the primaries for the most recent example of Democratic lies.

But if John McCain is going to try to tie Obama to, say, Tony Rezko (an exaggeration, to be kind), then does Obama have any choice but to exaggerate McCain's ties to the Keating 5 Scandal?

One thing seems certain (and I am not above this), if you favour a particular candidate, you will more readily swallow the half-truths and slander about the other candidate, and will (justly, but also reflexively) label the same half-truth about your candidate as a political smear. One thing is for certain, there is plenty of smear to go around.