264 replies to this topic

[Zelfitz]

Anyone see the episode last night, "The Choice 2004?" I sort of stumbled across it and couldn't look away. I loved the early footage of Bush and Kerry. The tape of Nixon saying that Kerry "looked (and talked) like a Kennedy" cracked me up. That campaign ad of Kerry's from the 1980's that looked like a cereal commercial was funny as well. How horrible for a politician's kids that their awkward pre-teen moments are captured and replayed 20 years later. Vanessa and Alexandra Kerry have the biggest teeth ev. I loved the guy who said that Bush's nickname was "Smirk." And then he said something like "it was a really charming part of his demeanor... until he became President." Heh. Laura Bush is/was really beautiful. Also liked the narrator saying that the only picture they could find of Bush at Harvard shows him blowing a bubble gum bubble during a lecture. And that 1970's era news footage of Bush that included news reporter Kay Bailey... who would grow up to become the senior senator from the Lone Star state, Kay Bailey Hutchison. It was just a really well done show. Lot's of footage I have never seen before (I'm a political junkie).

Edited by Zelfitz, Oct 13, 2004 @ 2:33 PM.

[hella fella]

I was completely enthralled by the show as well. However, the show did have a slight but apparent bias towards Kerry, which irritated me just a little bit. As a democrat, I'm not too bothered by this, considering some of the more egregious media distortions set forth by the republican machine, but if I were a republican, I'd be pissed.

Edited by hella fella, Oct 13, 2004 @ 3:59 PM.

[bmills]

I've loved other Frontline documentaries and have always thought them to be quite objective, so I was intrigued to see if I might detect any bias in this one. I didn't see anything blatantly slanted, but then again, that might just be because they were saying exactly what I expected hear. I did notice, however, that Kerry came off sounding like he never did anything wrong, and Bush came off sounding like his motives were never pure even when he did something right. Anyway, it was an interesting exercise in critical viewership. :)

[Namaste]

They were discussing this on the Diane Rheem show on public radio Wednesday, with the experts on site admitting that Frontline as a rule plays it straight, but that there was no way to compare Kerry and Bush in their 20s and 30s in a way that wasn't going to shine a more positive light on Kerry.

One caller who said she'd been undecided, though, said that she made up her mind after seeing Frontline.

Edited by Namaste, Oct 14, 2004 @ 11:02 AM.

[Zelfitz]

It's only too bad that the show was on PBS and didn't get the wide viewership a glitzy network show would have

Word. I even hated strarting this thread in the non-fiction shows forum, because I knew it wouldn't get much attention. I sort of wish every voter had to sit and watch this before voting in a few weeks. If it's re-run, watch it people! Please! You know you want to! It can't be wrong- it feels so good! Ah, pathetic begging
... I'll go get a hobby or something.

[mr.simpatico]

I think this may have been the first time I've actually seen Karl Rove

He's been coming out a little more lately but he's very much a Wizard of Ozian figure. I admit to be very intrigued by the guy, he seems brilliant (no matter what you think of his politics) and could make a Frontline special by himself. He basically picked Bush (could have been anyone I guess) and did the rest.

hella fella, as someone who leans right, I did think it was biased in favor of Kerry but not by much. The interviews with those who knew the men and the past footage of them was pretty much fair (I think a lot more could be said about W's day with the Texas Rangers though - he was highly respected by the other owners and the MLB Commissioner's job would have been something that fit him better than Prez.), the parts that I thought were biased were the "Frontine reporter" guy (whatever his name was) who could not take off the snear from his voice whenever he talked about Bush but had nary a bad word to say about Kerry. It was obvious he had a bias and Frontline could have just admitted it up straight up as is did with the other interviewees.

[Zelfitz]

the parts that I thought were biased were the "Frontine reporter" guy (whatever his name was) who could not take off the snear from his voice whenever he talked about Bush but had nary a bad word to say about Kerry.

Just to clarify- are you saying that the narrator was biased? That the actual tone of his voice was biased?

Edited by Zelfitz, Oct 17, 2004 @ 5:53 PM.

[mr.simpatico]

Just to clarify- are you saying that the narrator was biased? That the actual tone of his voice was biased?

No, not the narrator, one of the talking heads they had who was identified as a "Frontline reporter" or some such is who I'm talking about and he just sounded smarmy whenever he talked about Bush. But that's just my opinion of course. The actual narrator sounds like the same guy who usually does the FL stuff and he sounds the same all the time so I wasn't talking about him.

[Zelfitz]

No, not the narrator, one of the talking heads they had who was identified as a "Frontline reporter"

Oh (and hee!). That makes more sense. I don't know who you are talking about, I'd have to rewatch it, but I thought that if we were going to start searching for bias in the tone of people's voices things might be going too far.

[hella fella]

I would guess that Mr. Simpatico was talking about the New Yorker reporter. That guy came off as perhaps subtlely biased against Bush.

That said, I don't think Frontline threw any cheap shots and a strong case could be made that the journalists involved did their job exactly the way they should. I'm thinking more and more about the recent "internal" memo written by ABC's political director opining that the media were creating a false equivalency between the factual exaggerations put out by the Bush and Kerry campaigns. The reporting doesn't always have to be tit for tat, especially if one side is arguably behaving in a far worse manner. I would submit that the Bush campaign's tactics are FAR MORE disingenuous and distorting of the truth than Kerry's.

Similarly, I don't think there's any way to objectively look at their backgrounds and not concede that Kerry has worked harder throughout his life, has had less handed to him, and been more devoted to public service. Clearly, Kerry has the more impressive and noble biography, which doesn't, in and of itself, make him a better candidate at this moment in time. It does offer a valid explanation for why the Frontline program smelled a little pro-Kerry.

Edited by hella fella, Oct 18, 2004 @ 6:49 PM.

[Namaste]

the parts that I thought were biased were the "Frontine reporter" guy (whatever his name was)

I believe you're referring to Nicholas Leamann, correct? As opposed to Suskind?

I'd heard him interviewed on NPR, where the only conclusion he drew is that while Kerry is viewed as having been focused since his teen years, he views Bush as more ambitious now, overall.

Perhaps he has a sneer like the one referred to for Bush, by one of his college friends, who said it was a charming bit of his personality, until he was running for president.

[mr.simpatico]

I believe you're referring to Nicholas Leamann, correct?

Yeah, I think he was the one.

I'd heard him interviewed on NPR, where the only conclusion he drew is that while Kerry is viewed as having been focused since his teen years, he views Bush as more ambitious now, overall.

I think he said something similar at the end of FL too, in that Kerry would be the more dependable predictable president who won't make waves but Bush wants to be a more world-changing president and leave a mark on the world (for good or ill, history will tell). And I think that's about right.

Perhaps he has a sneer like the one referred to for Bush, by one of his college friends, who said it was a charming bit of his personality, until he was running for president.

Yes, I think that was it. Something in the tone of the guy's voice when he was talking about Bush as opposed to Kerry just turned me off. It was subtle but it was there. Just IMO of course.

[Zelfitz]

The entire show can be watched online now:

http://www.pbs.org/w...hoice2004/view/

[UnfamousLoser]

Did anyone else see the November 9th Frontline about advertising? I'm kind of watching it on and off. Holy shit. I can't stop laughing.

When one of the research guys asked a test subject (paraphrasing here; I don't remember it word for word), "How do you feel about white bread? When you eat it, do you feel...acceptance?" I loved that "what-the-fuck?" look on the test subject's face. It's just bread! It tastes good! I eat it! That's it!

How comforting to know that a president of the United States, who has access to nuclear weapons, is being partially elected/packaged by a group of people sitting in a room turning little knobs on "Perception Analyzers."

During the "what if the lizard doesn't want a Hummer? What if the lizard doesn't listen to environmentalists?" conversation, I thought, this is what conversation must sound like when you're on acid.

Edited by UnfamousLoser, Nov 10, 2004 @ 3:15 AM.

[MaryWebGirl]

I watched most of it before changing to The Daily Show, but I just came away with an overwhelming urge to visit my friend getting his MBA and punch him in the mouth.

I loved that "what-the-fuck?" look on the test subject's face.

That whole thing was a combo of hilarious and sickening for me. And boy that marketing for Song must just be amazing because I've never heard a damn thing about it.

[YankeeRebel]

My favorite part was the French guy (Clotaire Rapaille, who was profiled on the front page of the Sunday Times Styles section) talking about how the French know that cheese is alive and Americans think that cheese is dead. Hence we keep it in resealable plastic bags ("body bags") and keep it in the fridge ("the morgue"). Which pretty much encapsulated my reaction to this whole show: a simultaneous "What the f***?"/"That's insane"/"He's got a point..."

Song I had heard about, also "LoveMarks," 'cause I read Fast Company magazine and both were profiled there :-)

That whole "lizard"/Hummer thing I found very disturbing, because if there's some inherent truth to that whole theory, suddenly "SUV Nation" makes a whole lot of sense.

[dcalley]

I hated the French guy because he said women care about cupholders in cars. Fuckez-vous!

And I also hated that asshole Republican consultant who came up with "climate change" and claimed it was no different than "global warming." Well, yes it is! Change could be anything! Warming tells you what kind of change. Admit it, you like it because it doesn't sound as drastic, and your employers want to downplay the issue.

And how scary was that Acxion company?

ETA I also wished they had discussed how advertisers target children. Well, not how, just that they do.

Edited by dcalley, Nov 10, 2004 @ 6:43 PM.

[Decormaven]

I caught about half of this show and hope to see the rest at another time. What scares the bejeebus out of me was the discussion of how marketing people are looking to insert products into storylines, since the populace is tuning out/Tivo'ing/channel surfing through the advert breaks. I hate Shameless Product Plugs in movies and am troubled when I see it transferred over to the Lil' Screen.

[Spaz Cadet]

"How scary is that Axciom?"

Very. It's also an Arkansas company, much like Wal-Mart (subject of the next Frontline). Also, if you want a prep-read for the next FL, there was an article in Sunday's Times about how much consumer information WM has stored — something like twice the number of terabytes as the internet.

I liked the weird juxtapostion between the incredibly clinical data you can store and the emotional reactions people are looking for. On the other hand, Jeebus, what kind of world are we living in where people need political information marketed to them? What kind of responsibility is there to reasoned, engaged discourse?

This was truly a depressing show; I hope as these methods get out in the public eye anyone called to be part of a focus group gets evasive or lies their pants off. That white bread thing was too much. The tone of the interviewer — it was like one of those 50's-era psychoanalysts; "tell me about your mother ..."

[Spaz Cadet]

So — Wal-Mart.

Did anyone else think those cubicles looked like jail cells? Itty bitty, gray, all lined up — not to mention that someone inside is going to be the bitch.

Plus the Orwellian smiley face sign that says "meet em and greet em" over the hallway.

[Curare]

I was all like, "We make TVs?" It was informative. I was at a debate between The Economist and The Nation. And I have to say I have no idea what to think about Free Trade and Outsourcing/Offshoring. The more I learn the less I understand. I thought the Wal-Mart show was interesting. For what ever bias the show has you get or I feel you get some solid info. I say bias because the show ended with the machine guy who lost his job at the Thompson plant and not the other guy. Had it gone the other way I would be saying the same thing. I for one don't mind bias in the sense that when I read the Economist I know what to expect. The same goes for the Nation. What I don't care for is. "We are Right. They are Wrong" end of discussion. Back to the Wal-Mart show. I had no idea the trade inbalance was as bad as it is. When they were at Long Beach and you see those containers upon containers I was really surprised. They look like giant legos. When the lady said that the US sends raw materials to China and China sends finished products I got worried. I'm all for China improving itself it's just that I think there are some severe policy problems on the US end. Informative nontheless.

Edited by Curare, Nov 18, 2004 @ 2:08 AM.