Family Double Standards Fuel Flood of TV Filth

A "which came first, the chicken or the egg" debate is raging regarding objectionable television content during family hour. Media depictions of sex, profanity, and violence are increasing in their frequency and intensity, and family values advocates are understandably laying the blame for this rising tide of filth at the feet of television writers and networks. When it comes to the issue of objectionable television content, the debate centers on ascribing responsibility either to the networks for peddling tawdry material to unsuspecting parents and children, or to television viewers themselves for creating and sustaining a demand for programming rich with violence, sexual content, and obscene language. It is easy to merely blame both parties for the supply and demand situation, but addressing the real root of the problem may prove hard for many on both sides to swallow.

To place the issue in its current context, the following excerpts from the Washington Times article "Family Hour Goes Down the Tubes" help illustrate the scope of the problem objectionable television content poses for parents:

On average, objectionable material is broadcast every three minutes from 8 to 9 p.m., according to an analysis of 208 prime-time shows released yesterday by the Parents Television Council.

Only 11 percent of the programs were free of offensive fare, the study found. Three-quarters featured profanity, more than half contained sexual references, and almost half showcased violent acts and images, including "medical violence."

"These findings even surprised us. We knew it was bad, but not this bad," said Tim Winter, president of the Los Angeles-based watchdog group.

"The family hour was once a time to watch things like 'Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom' or 'Leave It to Beaver.' Now it's been turned into a toxic dump by an industry which does not serve the interests of the American public. The people are supposed to own these airwaves, not the industry," Mr. Winter said.

...After comparing respective results, the researchers concluded that family hour is "unsafe" and "even more hostile to children and families" by virtue of increased nudity, alarming autopsies, supernatural oddities and coarse behavior, among other factors.

..."The family hour needs to be restored," Mr. Winter said. "We're calling on the broadcast industry to return to the time-honored principle of airing mature-themed content only at later times of the evening; and to provide parents with a consistent, objective and meaningful content ratings system. We are calling on the advertising industry to underwrite only time-appropriate content with their media dollars."

There is no question that television content is far more graphic and coarse than it was when Mr. Winter's organization performed a similar study in 2001. CBS has reportedly increased its smut programming quotient by 579 percent since 2001, and the Fox network experienced a 426 percent jump in the same period. Are such astounding spikes in objectionable content caused by networks pushing the envelope of artistic license, or are they merely indicative of viewers' corresponding insatiable hunger for a steady diet of prurient fare?

Mr. Winters' concluding statement above contains what I assert is the seed that has allowed weeds of obscenity to overgrow and choke out what used to be a pleasing garden of television programming for families. Winters pleaded for a "return to the time-honored principle of airing mature-themed content only at later times of the evening; and to provide parents with a consistent, objective and meaningful content ratings system." It is precisely this accepted belief in different standards for children and adults that has created the objectionable content crisis that Winters decries.

When parents establish different standards between what is acceptable for their children to watch and what they themselves watch, they are actually setting a double standard. While young children may not be fully cognizant of the difference, older children and particularly teenagers, are highly sensitive toward perceived hypocrisy. Teens are especially outraged by moral hypocrisy demonstrated by their parents, and they observe such hypocrisy daily when parents view programming containing "mature-themed content" but insist that such programming is unfit for their teens to watch. As parents subject themselves to evening television fare filled with sex, violence, and profanity, they become desensitized and weaken their own resolve to protect their children from their own viewing habits. When parents partake of ever-coarser programs and movies, they lose all perspective and begin to judge content on the "it's not that bad" sliding scale, where "bad" is measured against the worst they have been watching rather than against truly good, clean entertainment.

Television sets are often given an honored place at the family dinner table, as parents increasingly seek to avoid conversation with their children and teens. The soothing siren song of the television drowns out family discussions and exposes family members of all ages to the insidious influences endemic to evening programming. The result is that networks, who are dependent on advertising revenue, shape their programming content during "family hour" to cater to the family members who make and spend the most money in the household: the parents. The Disney Company grasped this concept long ago, and in a more benign marketing push changed the dialogue and music of its animated feature films to be more suitable for the adults accompanying children to theaters. Celebrities favored by adults were brought in to
perform the voices of animated characters, not because children have become more sophisticated but because the movies were intentionally geared toward adults.

Robin Williams as the genie in Disney's Aladdin is a classic example, as even teenage children have difficulty following his rapid-fire delivery sarcasm and references humorous only to adults. It no longer matters whether children can follow the plot and dialogue as long as there are sufficient special effects and flatulence to make them laugh. Adults have the deep pockets and network executives are eager to produce programming that helps advertisers reach ever deeper into those pockets. Thus evening programming, even in the so-called family hour must appeal to adults, and since parents are accustomed to mature content, it is no surprise that the programming from 8 to 9 p.m. is becoming ever more graphic and obscene, unfit for children.

This does not insulate network officials from their portion of responsibility in producing filthy television fare, but it is evident, as illustrated by the widespread acceptance of pay-per-view pornography available on demand in any home, that parents are becoming less and less capable of judging objectively whether programming is good or bad for their children. After all, they cannot see, or perhaps refuse to acknowledge, the harm mature programming and dangerous moral double standards for their teens is doing to their families. It may be considered prudish in today's morally permissive climate to use a simple standard for judging television content: if I would not sit down and show this program or movie to my children, why do I need to expose myself to it either? A similar question might be posed: if this content will harm my child and offend her purity and innocence, why do I think I am immune from its harmful effects? Tucking children safely in their beds and then immersing oneself in obscene "mature" programming is a double standard that will impair parental success and dilute family values.

It is likewise baffling that otherwise intelligent parents place so mush faith in content ratings systems for programs, movies, music lyrics, and video games. In essence, if you trust ratings systems, you are trusting a group of strangers employed in the entertainment industry to get together and decide what is appropriate morally for your children. We teach our children not to talk to strangers because strangers may harm them or not have their best interest in mind. Why do parents not apply the same advice when it comes to their reliance on content ratings?

Mr. Winters deserves support and respect for encouraging networks to produce more family-friendly television fare, but the root of the problem is that too much of what is aired during "family hour" fits all too well the accepted standards in many homes. The term "family-friendly only carries significance if families have high standards and entertainment expectations that all family members live by at all times, not merely during the hour before 9 p.m. when mature content magically becomes acceptable on all channels.

The laws of supply and demand, like the chicken and the egg question, dictate that one is necessary to produce the other in a symbiotic relationship. Left to their own devices, Hollywood's television producers have been known to push the limits of acceptable content. They need little encouragement to try every titillating tactic possible to attract viewers. Yet they do not produce this content in a moral vacuum. It is the widespread acceptance of coarse content in American homes that encourages the flood of filth now permeating every network. Calling for a restoration of the "family hour" is noble, but unless parents make a conscious effort to improve the quality of the media content they consume during the other hours of the day, they will be in no moral position to make family hour meaningful.

Technorati Tags: Content Ratings Parents Television Council Mature Content Television Programming Parenting Family Values

Matador Mayor and Thompson Win GOP Debate

Although the announced candidates who participated in Wednesday's GOP debate in New Hampshire would disagree, Fred Thompson may have done himself a favor by skipping the debate and announcing his candidacy on the "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno instead. After all, the first seven minutes of Wednesday's debate were dedicated to him, with each candidate offering light jabs at his absence while ultimately welcoming him to the race as a formidable and charismatic candidate. Thompson aired his first official thirty second campaign ad on Fox News immediately prior to the debate, but, courtesy of Fox News' choice of questions, received seven minutes of free publicity and praise at the expense of his rivals, who surely bridled at having to talk about the qualities of a candidate who leads all but Giuliani in the polls and intentionally skipped the debate itself. The decision could not have worked out better for Thompson, who was running a strong second in GOP polls even before his official announcement Wednesday night.

After each GOP candidate debate, Capital Cloak has published an analysis of each candidate's performance and assigned a letter grade. The results from Wednesday's debate follow, in grade order:

Rudy Giuliani A-
It was interesting to observe that in Fox News' post-debate interviews of New Hampshire residents, Giuliani was criticized for over emphasizing his accomplishments as mayor of America's largest city. One alleged GOP voter expressed her desire to ask Giuliani, "What else did you do?", in reference to his qualifications to be president. Apparently she had done no research on Giuliani and missed his mention of having been the third highest official in the Justice Department, in which capacity he actively prosecuted the mafia and terrorists prior to becoming mayor, it bears repeating, of America's largest city. To nearly every question asked in the debate, Giuliani had a ready response that included documented achievements he was responsible for as mayor, and not coincidentally, those responses covered the hottest topics of the debate: illegal immigration, gun laws, government spending, high taxes, and private behavior of public officials.

The more one listens to Giuliani's responses, the more satisfying those answers become. He is a political matador who recognizes "bull" in questions or accusations and deftly avoids it by waving his red cape of mayoral experience. This was evident on a number of issues, but perhaps most clearly expressed when asked about whether the public should examine closely a candidate's private life. Giuliani, who of course is on his third marriage, offered an honest, human response by pointing out that some of the most difficult moments in his personal life occurred while he was mayor, yet those struggles did not detract from his ability to lead New York out of fiscal, crime, and image crises. It was an interesting adaptation of the concept of leadership under personal duress. He modestly mentioned that he was not running as "the perfect candidate" for president, but as an imperfect human who is also the best qualified for the job.

Although the Fox News panel attempted to portray Giuliani as weak on foreign policy through its previously mentioned question to McCain, Giuliani actually provided the best answer to the foreign policy scenario question regarding Iranian nuclear weapons. Giuliani asserted that the risk is not that Iran will attack Israel or other nations with nuclear weapons; the risk is that Iran will supply nuclear weapons to terrorists they are currently supplying with conventional weapons. He added that America must be clear in its policy against Iran nuclear capability. He drew tremendous applause for reminding viewers that Ronald Reagan pointed thousands of nuclear weapons at Soviet cities during the Cold War while negotiating arms reduction.

The Fox News post-debate interviews were critical of Giuliani and New Hampshire voters voiced their disappointment in his performance, but in comparison with his rivals on stage, Giuliani did nothing to lessen his status as the GOP front-runner.

John McCain B+
After his poor showings in prior debates and given his plummeting poll numbers, I did not expect McCain to turn in a strong performance Wednesday. It was not a matter of his specific answers or changing his message, but McCain somehow managed to come across as decisive, forceful, and better prepared than in previous debates. On nearly every issue, from illegal immigration to torture of enemy combatants, McCain's responses were indistinguishable from those he offered in other debates, but his delivery was more polished and confident and he appeared comfortable defending his record in the Senate on controversial issues. The difference in grade between Wednesday's debate and previous debates can be attributed to McCain's conscious effort to add an element of style to the substance of his responses, and as a result he was far less robotic and far more engaged. I credit McCain for delivering the best statement of the debate. When asked to address Rudy Giuliani's lack of foreign policy experience, McCain praised Giuliani for providing solid management to New York City before and after 9/11, but then described his own leadership credentials in foreign policy, national security, and military issues. McCain commented, "I was once put in charge of the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy. I didn't manage it, I led it."

In this debate, McCain seized the optimist mantle from Mitt Romney and with nearly every statement expressed confidence in America's eventual victory in Iraq and in the War on Terror. When Romney stated that General Petraeus' surge strategy "is apparently working," McCain countered, "It is not apparently working. It IS working." These small but significant changes in style and delivery transformed McCain's standard answers on various issues into more forceful and confident statements than he had made throughout his campaign to that point. Of the candidates, McCain was one of only three who actually answered the hypothetical scenario question regarding taking military action to prevent Iran from constructing nuclear weapons. McCain made it clear that we cannot rely on the UN Security Council, with China and Russia sitting like so much dead weight on this issue, to resolve it safely. His statement that ultimately it will be the U.S. that must take action to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran's hands will likely prove prophetic.

It was his strongest performance to date, and although I disagree with his positions on illegal immigration and "torture" of enemy combatants in certain dire national survival situations, he outperformed all but one of his rivals on this occasion.


Mitt Romney B
As Fox News' Carl Cameron confirmed at the conclusion of the debate, Romney was targeted with the toughest questions of the debate as well as the highest overall number of questions asked directly to the former Massachusetts governor, allegedly because he was the New Hampshire front-runner. In these questions, Romney was accused of the following: turning a blind eye to illegal alien "sanctuary cities" in Massachusetts while hypocritically charging Giuliani with doing the same in New York; previously supporting abortion rights in Massachusetts; defending to a father of a son returning soon from two tours in Iraq his already apologized for comparison of his sons' campaign service to military service by other American sons; wanting to wiretap mosques and churches without warrants; claiming to reduce taxes while sneakily raising fees and fines in Massachusetts to make up for lost tax revenue; more eagerly advocating a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq than Hillary Clinton.

No other candidate was forced on the defensive by the moderators than Romney, and as a result he did not manage to portray the image of poise and optimism he had exuded in the previous debates. He offered plausible explanations for each of the above-listed accusations: Governors are not responsible for mayors who do not enforce immigration laws in their own cities; candidates make hundreds of appearances and sometimes say things in ways they don't intend and apologize profusely, acknowledging that those who place their lives on the line for America are "in a league of their own"; wiretapping mosques and churches would be done only with warrants and although such surveillance is distasteful, the most fundamental right Americans have is the right to be kept alive by government diligence; denied increasing fees in Massachusetts and reiterating the numerous tax cuts he implemented in that state; advocated no timetable for troop withdrawal and asserted that such decisions should be made between the president and the generals fighting the war.

Unlike previous debates, Romney was not addressed with any questions about family values, defense of marriage, and other issues perceived as strengths of the picture-perfect family man. He graciously brushed aside post-debate comments from Fox News' Alan Colmes that implied he had been treated harshly by the panel, stating that he felt it had been fun. His body language, facial expressions, and voice inflections throughout the debate itself, however, indicated he found the orchestrated ambush unfair and unexpected. Considering the level of questions aimed at him and his efforts to address them, Romney did well enough to earn a respectable grade in this debate. He has worked long and hard in New Hampshire and likely did not lose his lead in that state's GOP polls based on his debate performance.


Sam Brownback B-
Like Mike Huckabee, Brownback was fed a steady diet of easily digestible questions geared toward his declared strengths: family values, gay marriage,and tax cuts. The only controversial question directed to Brownback was whether he would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Brownback has addressed this issue in previous debates, including the prior debate hosted by Fox News, thus it was strange that it would be repeated once again to the same candidate. Brownback's response was soothing to conservative ears: Yes there should be an amendment because America needs more children born into wedlock with a mom and a dad "bonded together for life." While Democratic opponents would challenge that view, there was naturally nary a note of discord from his GOP debate rivals.

I also was pleased by Brownback's comment that an important result of lower taxes would be that more families could afford to live off of a single income, allowing one of the parents to be home and available to care for children. Yet, in comparison with the thorny questions tackled by Romney, Brownback was too treated to lightly with kid gloves by the moderators to merit a higher grade. It was Brownback's best performance to date, but I stand by my previous assessment that he is the GOP version of Al Gore in his delivery and voice intonations.

Mike Huckabee C+
Huckabee was the grateful beneficiary of Fox News' ambush of Romney, in that there appeared to be no difficult questions left to throw at him. The most pointed question directed specifically to Huckabee merely required him to explain his view on the "fair tax." Other softball questions lobbed to Huckabee included issues the ordained minister surely appreciated, such as abortion. To his credit, Huckabee responded well to the abortion question, citing the Arkansas Human Life Amendment as a potential model for eventual federal legislation, as the Arkansas amendment established that life begins at conception and should be protected until its natural conclusion.

Huckabee engaged in an exchange with Ron Paul over what to do about Iraq, with Paul arguing that we should withdraw because we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place and Huckabee responding that regardless of how we got there, we are there and need to leave with honor and victory. Huckabee's "we bought it because we broke it" view on Iraq was anything but complimentary to the Bush administration's conduct of the war. Any exchange with Paul is guaranteed to liven a debate, and this was no exception.

Huckabee was at his worst in responding to the Iranian nuclear weapons scenario. Quite simply, he did not even attempt to answer the question about whether to use force. He sputtered for a minute about how decisions must be guided by the constitution and a leader's conscience and character. He emphasized that such scenarios illustrate why it is critical for a president to surround himself with wise people. He made no effort to explain what he would do in such a situation, leaving viewers with the impression that he does not know whether he would use force against Iran to keep nuclear weapons out of its hands. Americans are not looking for indecision from its next president and that is why Huckabee remains quagmired in GOP polls.


Duncan Hunter D
After every Duncan Hunter debate performance, I hopefully expect to see a text on my screen stating, in Monty Python fashion, that "the advisers who prepared Hunter for the debate wish it to be known that they have just been sacked." Unfortunately for Hunter, no sackings have occurred. In every debate thus far, Hunter has made the same lame reference to "not that scraggly fence you see on CNN" when discussing border security and his beloved fence that he claims to have personally built near San Diego. Hunter is the epitome of a political figure who can do much good in Congress but is not destined to hold high executive office. His value appears to be in defending his party and looking out for the interests of the military. Hunter was the only candidate, including self-proclaimed military expert McCain, who could reel off from memory statistics regarding reductions of civilian casualties in the various Iraqi provinces. Hunter would make a fine Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and should limit his aspirations to that noble duty.

Hunter did issue the most effective barb to Democrats, pointing out that the while the GOP acts to remove figures like Larry Craig when they are found to be ethically challenged, Democrats make such figures chairmen of committees. Hunter was also the only candidate other than Giuliani who viewed Iran's capacity to share nuclear material with terrorist groups as the most pressing reason to take action against Iran before it produces sufficient enriched uranium to make such a scenario reality.

Ron Paul D-
Other than entertainment value as the designated foil, it is difficult to find justifiable reasons for the inclusion of Ron Paul in these debates. Still, he earned a higher grade than Tancredo because Paul is nothing if not entertaining, in a lecturing college professor of political philosophy way.

Paul's expressed Libertarian views were no different in substance or style from previous debates: 9/11 happened because the government was too involved with the airlines and should have left airline security for private companies to handle; we should not assume GOV will take care of us; People who say there will be a bloodbath in Iraq if we leave are the same people who said it would be a cakewalk and it would all be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues; Threatening Iran is the worst possible strategy and it will make us less safe; we are only staying in Iraq now to save face; when we sacrifice liberty for security, we lose both; the Department of Homeland Security only worsened the existing intelligence bureaucracy that led to the failures of 9/11 and it should be disbanded; Israel can take care of itself and we should back off from our rhetoric toward Iran and talk to its leaders rather than attack without provocation.


Tom Tancredo F
Tancredo was his normal angry, bitter, pedantic self in this debate, lecturing on his two pet issues, illegal immigration and the war with Radical Islam. Americans have little patience for people who display an attitude of "I told you so," yet Tancredo long ago adopted that attitude regarding illegal immigration as the basis of his entire campaign. In consecutive debates, Tancredo has commented on his "surprise" that it took his rivals so long to realize the pressing nature of the illegal immigration problem that he has been talking about for years. "I told you so" will not win many votes, as Tancredo has discovered in his fruitless campaign.

For all his tough talk on the war against Radical Islam, Tancredo declined to answer the hypothetical scenario question regarding Iranian nuclear weapons. He made vague comments about restrictive rules of engagement for our military, and that political correctness will get us all killed, but would not address the question, which was whether he would use force against Iran under the cited circumstances.

Fox News B
More than any other network, Fox allowed the candidates at times to directly engage each other, as in the Paul-Huckabee exchange described above. Likewise, unlike other networks, Fox formulated some very pointed and controversial questions and a thorny hypothetical scenario for the candidates to address. Fox could have earned a higher grade by more equally distributing the tough questions among the candidates.

Wednesday's debate offered a timely illustration of why Fred Thompson, and potentially Al Gore, have been wise to make their cases directly to voters through electronic media rather than rely on traditional media outlets to objectively report their messages. Voter impressions of candidates are too easily manipulated by media outlets through camera angles, lighting, photo captions, article headlines, and choice of debate questions. In a ninety minute period, Fox News successfully altered voter perceptions of Mitt Romney's poise and optimistic spirit from what they were before the debate. In the high stakes game of presidential campaigning, controlling the content and presentation of a candidate's message becomes a priceless commodity. Thompson is working hard to maintain that control, while his rivals are placing their political heads in the media lion's mouth in hopes of earning applause rather than being devoured.

Technorati Tags: GOP Debate Fox News Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney John McCain Mike Huckabee Sam Brownback Ron Paul Report Cards Fred Thompson

Thompson and Gore Share Tennessee Waltz

Al Gore and Fred Thompson have more in common than their Tennessee roots and international fame. Despite holding as close to diametrically opposed views as one could expect to find in the political realm, Thompson and Gore share an understanding of the most influential power in American politics in the twenty-first century: the media, liberal and conservative alike. Beyond merely recognizing that media shapes perceptions of politicians and political office seekers, the Tennessee duo dance a graceful waltz around traditional media outlets. Likewise, both count on their media savvy to convey their shared, albeit very different, passions for swaying public opinion.

There has been much ado in the media about Fred Thompson's decision to eschew this Wednesday's GOP New Hampshire debate hosted by Fox News in favor of airing his first campaign ad during the debate and appearing on the "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno later that evening. Critics of Thompson's strategy offer trumped up charges that Thompson is impugning the dignity of presidential politics by announcing his candidacy on the "Tonight Show" rather than the tried and true press conference method. Others, including his competitors, fault him for not taking the candidate debates seriously and joining them in their seemingly bi-weekly grillings from various media personalities "moderating" the debates. Such criticisms merely reveal the petty jealousies of media outlets who desire Thompson's stage presence for its inherent ratings draw, as well as the envy of his GOP rivals who work much harder, spend more money, and shake more hands than Thompson but unlike him cannot afford to skip the circuses the debates have become without suffering in opinion polls of potential voters.

Thompson is gambling that choreographed debates with candidates given only enough time for canned answers is no way to get his message across to today's voters. Those who have watched the previous GOP candidate debates would be hard pressed to argue that candidates are afforded any real opportunity to interact with potential voters during such events. The candidates do not debate each other directly, which would give voters entertainment and political substance, and until candidate debates are in fact debates, Thompson's choice to sit out these dances appears increasingly sensible.

Thompson and Gore are revolutionizing presidential campaigning and political issue lobbying, respectively, while media outlets and political opponents cry foul. Whatever one thinks of Gore's "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth, it is difficult to deny that using film as his communication medium for spreading the alarmist view of global warming effectively circumvented the traditional political lobbying strategy of persuading newspaper editors or television network on-air news personalities to take his pet issue seriously. Al Gore ran an end run around the traditional news media and took his message directly to audiences in forums, universities, high school classrooms, and living rooms around the world. He was eager to communicate his global warming opinions without the need for media middlemen to analyze his message and then explain it to their viewers or readers. People could simply watch his film and choose whether to accept it as fact or fiction.

Of course, media outlets became willing accomplices in spreading Gore's message, touting it so effectively that Academy Awards were all but guaranteed and media adulation flowed, perhaps as small consolation prizes for narrowly missing out on the brass ring in the 2000 presidential election. So thorough was Gore's manipulation of the media to spread a personal message that fellow Tennessean Thompson now appears to be following Gore's lead in bypassing media events such as Wednesday's GOP debate solely to keep his message from passing through the filters of mainstream media before it reaches potential voters. The following quotes illustrate the similarity in thinking and media strategy between Gore and Thompson. First, Al Gore from an interview with Vanity Fair:

Gore tells Peretz that he does believe that some of his words were distorted and that certain major reporters and outlets were often unfair, and admits that the tendency of the press to twist his words encumbered his ability to speak freely. “I tried not to let it [affect my behavior],” Gore tells Peretz. “But if you know that day after day the filter is going to be so distorted, inevitably that has an impact on the kinds of messages that you try and force through the filter. Anything that involves subtlety or involves trusting the reporters in their good sense and sense of fairness in interpretation, you’re just not going to take a risk with something that could be easily distorted and used against you.”

Your first reaction to Gore's comments to Vanity Fair will likely be to chuckle at the accusation that the New York Times and Washington Post were somehow out to sink Gore's chances for winning the White House in 2000. The illogic of such a conspiracy theory is remarkable; is Gore implying that those two bastions of media liberalism would have preferred and worked toward a George W. Bush victory in that election? Having addressed that absurdity we can return to the similarities between Gore's and Thompson's media awareness. Compare Fred Thompson's strategy for the 2008 election with Gore's concerns about the media filter as cited above:

The face time with Leno and the debate ad on Fox News Channel are the coquettish moves of a candidate who has already proven his aptitude using the media, from television to the Internet. While his main rivals—Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain—parry debate questions, Thompson will pretty much control his own message.

Thompson aides want as many eyes on the Web video as possible. The debate ad and a follow-up commercial on Thursday will instruct viewers to go online and get their undiluted message straight from the candidate.

"We think one of the strongest weapons this campaign has is Fred Thompson's ability to connect directly with the public," said Todd Harris, Thompson's communications director. "We want to drive as much traffic as possible to the Web site."

Gore clearly believes now that media outlets, even ones with a known liberal bent, lampooned him and affected voter perceptions of him as a presidential candidate in 2000. He believes it was "scary" that the media had such power. A politically wiser Gore, now with experience in producing and distributing his own media products and political message, understands the need to avoid the media filter and communicate directly with voters. Likewise, Thompson is effectively using a variety of media tools to share his views with voters without news reporters distorting his intended message.

This concept is similar to a phenomenon that occurs in the intelligence community; analysts read raw intelligence reports, determine what they think the intelligence means, and then distill it into analytical reports for policy makers who depend on analysts to explain what they are reading. If policy makers had the time or inclination to receive raw intelligence directly from field operatives and make up their own minds as to what the intelligence indicated, their policy decisions might be markedly different. Voters, like policy makers, like to have news and issues wrapped neatly in eye-pleasing packages and rely almost exclusively on middle-men, reporters or editors, to explain the significance of the news they are reading or watching. We seem to have lost our individual capacity to think, to reason, and to form our own opinions without a famous media personality telling us how we should think about the issues. It is truly group think run amok.

Gore and Thompson, though doing it for seemingly different motives, are breaking new ground and performing what may become an important service to American politics by taking their messages directly to their intended audiences. Rather than criticize Thompson for not joining his competitors in bowing before the media at CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC hosted debates, voters and pundits should praise him for ignoring the natural inclination to cozy up to news outlets that, as they did to Gore in 2000, will surely turn and bite him on whatever Achilles' Heel they can expose.

Fred Thompson Al Gore Presidential Candidates 2008 Campaign New Hampshire GOP Debate Media Influence