Am I the only one who doesn't like spinners?

Why? WHY?

from JoeUser Forums

Why do these shows interview so many spin doctors? Like we care what Hilary Clinton thinks on the debate or what Karen Hughs think. We know what they're going to say and it's meaningless. It's just talking points.

Does anyone actually take the spinners seriously? I'd rather have the talking heads on there.

politics
4,922 views 14 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think you can weigh the opponent's performance by what the spinners have to say, though. I noticed Hillary and the rest seemed to have a lot less to say about Bush this time around. When they resort to critiquing grammar you can bet they don't have as much real substance as they would like.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I say they go to the board with pointers like Perot hehehe

oh Hill has to be in on it she has time to throw her 2 cents on the debate but yet doesn't have time show up to vote the other evening hmmm I say she has her priorities set.
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
What I want to know is who would win in a knife fight. Bush is from Texas, and were pretty tough down here. I say scrap the third debate, throw both of them in an arena with some 12" blades and let them decide the next four years in a free for all.

Survival of the fittest baby.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, I totally agree. The spin doctors are useless. Like their going to say, "well, our guy really, stepped in it, tonight."
Yeah right!

I have no clue why the networks defer to these people after a debate. I don't give a, flying s--t, what Karen Hughs or Hillery Clinton have to say.
Hell, we have a hard enough time as it is to get the candidates to tell the truth. These puppy dogs are only going to regurjitate their party song.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
d3adz0mbie

I don't know about the knife fight thing. Nothing against Texas, but Bush might try to figure out how to get out of that one. He isn't much for going into combat himself ya know.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
d3adz0mbie I wouldn't go that far but I definately thought the look in Bush's eyes this evening was one of "I could take you down boooooy" hehehe "Ann if I need too I will get on those internets and order some of that WOOD from my imaginary company" hehehe
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kerry's soft, he's been pampered by his aristocratic lifestyle. Sure, he's probably familiar with shooting himself in the foot , but Bush would have the upper hand mano a mano.

Of course this would only work if Star Trek "fight music" played during the entire event.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
Of course this would only work if Star Trek "fight music" played during the entire event.


(hums the music)Dah dah dah dah dah DAH DAH-DAH DAH, oooooo eeeee...cough...anyways need those sticks with blade on one end and bumper on the other with a Vulcan moderator to preside over the fight!

And NO USE OF THE FORCE!!

- GX
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Does anyone remember "Max Headroom"? As worthless as he was he'd be better than the spin doctors.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Turns out the wood company isn't imaginary, but I doubt Bush has any idea his portfolio includes one (his stuff is in a blind trust by law), so his reply was genuine in my opinion and a great comeback. I dislike the spinner interviews, too, but they're kind of like the car wreck at the side of the road - you just have to slow down and look. Occasionally, something gets explained a bit better, a point more clearly made (on both sides), and in a twisted kind of way I like it when Colmes goes after Bush's spinners & Hannity goes after Kerry's - those tussles are kind of fun.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
Why do these shows interview so many spin doctors?
I'm with you. I do not want to hear these people.

But I think I can answer your question, and I hope that I am right, because I teach the answer to my media class. The media covers politics as though it were a sporting event. Like a horse race or a Super Bowl, the first thing is who is ahead, and the second thing is who is likely to win. Throw in some inside scoop on the tactics for the nerds, and you have entertainment coverage.

Can you imagine what would happen to a network that showed no interest in this stuff, and instead worked to clarify the ideas of the candidates? "Candidate A said early on that if the US honored the Kyoto Protocol, it would have X affect on our ally ____. Since his time contraints did not allow him to expand on this idea, lets look at what his white paper on the subject says. His reasoning goes like this..."

Can you hear the millions of remotes clicking to another network? The audience wants to know the score. The audience wants to know who "got" who. The audience wants to argue over the rules infractions. ("Lets have another replay of that bulge on Bush's back. Wait, lets see that from twelve more angles. Now, let's survey the audience to see how they feel about the bulge on the President's back") The audience wants to know whose facial expressions and body movements were presidential. Everyone wants to know if there was a knockout punch -- some great one liner that shows who would make the best comedian -- oops, I mean, best president.

But before anyone can decide whether the facial expressions and the one liners were winners, we have to hear what everyone else thinks.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don Bemont -

Well said. Had to give you points. Our media suck. We have to work really hard to glean the substance from the cheerleading.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
They put the talking heads on for the simple reason there is not enough news to fill the space. And they can always count on the heads for their spin, and some 30 second sound bites.

I guess it may influence some of the empty headed, but it is just to fill air time. Remember when news was just an hour a day? and not 24x7?