Politicians, Waffles and the Media

I like the media, basically. I think they have their problems, but overall, I defend even corporate media as having its proper place in American society - I just take everything with a grain of salt.

I also am addicted to reading reader commentary, particularly on the Boston Globe website. This is a terrible addiction, it is very much bad for my health. Invariably, I am drawn to the comments on articles I know are going to get the stupidest comments and increase my blood pressure. And so . . . I read this one. It's a boring article, really. And not really very important, but it involves my Congressman, so I thought I'd catch up on what he's been up to. Turns out, he voted for a bill, but said that if that very same bill came before the House again, he would vote against it.

And, of course, the idiots came out of the woodwork. Don't believe me?

Read the comments . . .

Capuano's position is clear, really. He supports the majority of the bill, but he's against the abortion provision. He knows that if he votes against the bill, it will set back the process. If he votes for it, it still needs to go through the Senate and it will change in the meantime and probably (hopefully) lose that abortion provision. People who don't get this, don't get politics and really should have their right to vote rescinded.

He's not waffling. His diatribe against Coakley (which might be similarly flawed, but that's a political maneuver, not ignorance) in essence accused her of being politically naive - always voting your conscience is a good way to never getting anything accomplished - you need to play smart.

So, what do we take from this lesson?

1) People need to hone their critical thinking skills - if something sounds implausible, it probably is. If that little alarm goes off - do a little extra research. Go back to the source.

2) If you aren't doing the thinking, shut up. Your knee-jerk opinion is useless and only makes you look foolish.

3) The Globe is really partially at fault here. I hate to admit it, being the defender of big media (in its proper place) that I am, but the reporting is sloppy. Rather than taking the opportunity to explain the process, the Globe reporter is taking the opportunity to create a story here - the Capuano and Coakley feud. Sound bites win out over reason, even in print media - especially in an age when print media is losing ground to other media sources (of course, they aren't helping themselves by letting me read it for free online). In any case, the story only invites idiocy rather than elevating understanding, which is the putative purpose of the media, or at least I thought.