I would be glad to make a stink about misleading headlines about Obama, not just about McCain, if there were any that I've seen. The headlines are complimentary and generous about him. That may be fallacious, too, but it's not as annoying. I don't agree with McCain and Palin on most issues but until we walk into the voting booth and pull the levers, we haven't actually made a decision. The press (print or otherwise) shouldn't be controlling my opinion of the candidates - the candidates should be doing that - yet every day this keeps happening.

Here are the top "Latest News" headlines on CNN's front page this afternoon.


That ticker headline clearly implies that someone on the McCain/Palin team, probably someone not very important since they're not named but referred to as an aide, derided Palin's abilities to run a company and, by extension, the country.

So you click on the Ticker and see the article headline that says "Fiorina: Palin, McCain not qualified to run company" so now you're figuring that someone important thinks little of McCain or Palin as far as their qualifications for high office. But it turns out that the person speaking is Carly Fiorina, the former successful CEO of Hewlett-Packard, and that she's not an aide at all but the chair of a McCain committee. So you read the article:



And it turns out that Fiorina said something altogether different from what the Ticker or the article headline said or implied. Fiorina actually said that none of the candidates could run a company, none of them (neither Obama nor Biden nor McCain nor Palin) but not because they're incompetent, no, because none has any business experience. And she also says that business experience isn't necessarily relevant or germane. All those words and disinformation for that unsurprising - and not negative - assessment.

The "ticker" could have stated that "Obama couldn't run company" just as accurately and just as misleadingly. Or Biden or McCain. Why did it single out Palin when that wasn't what Fiorina said?

ENOUGH! The press should let us decide what we think about what Obama and McCain propose to do and/or not do if they become president.

It's utterly ridiculous that it's so difficult to find out what the candidates for the highest offices in our government really say or think without being pointed away from them. The whole point of headlines is to alert readers or viewers to what we might want to read or view, not to mislead and skew us away from facts and statements that might help us make reasoned and informed decisions.

Labels: 2008 election, anger, writing

Pride does in fact goeth before nearly all falls. Eliot Spitzer, the soon-to-be-former governor of New York, built his career and reputation - and pretty much won the governorship - by prosecuting what he said were evil wrongdoings among businessmen and prostitutes. He sounded like a zealot and pursed his lips like a religious convert. Yet apparently all the while he was conducting business with prostitutes himself. Huh, you say? What, you ask?? One wants to assume the news is wrong but Spitzer himself announced this all a few minutes ago and said he will resign.

How can anyone expect to hide something like this? How could Spitzer have been so astonishly hypocritical? One is reminded of Gary Hart insisting he had not had any doings with call girls and telling the press to follow him everywhere if they didn't believe him . . . and then being appalled when they showed photos of him with, er, call girls.

We all do wrong or illegal things - few, if any, are immune from human nature, after all. But if you choose to run for a public office, you have to expect - no, you have to know that all will eventually be found out. Either don't run or, up front, acknowledge the transgressions with complete assurance that they are finished. One simply cannot expect to hide, not in the age of 24-hour news. Unless, that is, you are Bill or Hillary, both of whom are apparently made of a different cloth that allows all manner of transgression to be (a) committed, (b) hidden, (c) admitted and (d) ignored / gotten away with.

I feel very bad for Spitzer's wife and children but there is almost no derision too strong for someone so loudly and publicly self-righteous whose feet are as clay-filled as all of ours.

Labels: anger, modern culture, people

So - do you think that talking about something that annoys you means you're a negative person, a complainer? How about if you're complaining about something that's actually unpleasant or bad? Should we always just smile about everything? (Can you say "hair shirt"?)

I'd be curious to know what any rare readers think about a person who expresses frustration or anger. How do you distinguish between someone who's expressing a frustration and someone who is a complainer? Do you react differently when it's a man or woman speaking?

Consider people who become sick because they internalize their feelings, especially their negative feelings (migraines, colitis, back pain, hives, etc.). (I guess Rosie O'Donnell will certainly never be one of them!) And is there a difference if the anger is because of genuinely difficult things?

Labels: anger, reflections