I have said it before that I care about health as an issue, but it is WAY DOWN on the list of thingls I (and others) should care about. For heavens sake, IF they are well enough to get through a campaign, then they are in some reasonable form of health. 

This HAS become a campaign about nothing and I blame the press for a lot of this. 

TheLagerLad wrote:

tennyson wrote:

I have said it before that I care about health as an issue, but it is WAY DOWN on the list of thingls I (and others) should care about. For heavens sake, IF they are well enough to get through a campaign, then they are in some reasonable form of health. 

This HAS become a campaign about nothing and I blame the press for a lot of this. 

I put a candidate's health a bit higher on the list. I agree that the brutality of the campaign gives decent insight into a candidate's stamina, but we also need to be forward looking as we're voting not just for now, but for the next 4 years. 

And I am not sure how the press can be blamed for the state of this particular campaign. The press can only report on what the campaign gives them. Trump offers nothing. Clinton, only slightly more. 

We just need to hang tight until the debates. That should finally get us to the nuts and bolts of some key issues.
 

Well good press people USED to dig for stories and info rather than just waiting for it to be handed to them. There are a few still around but not many that do this anymore. We are now in a 24 hr news cycle of nothing as it pertains to the election. 

 

tennyson wrote:

TheLagerLad wrote:

tennyson wrote:

I have said it before that I care about health as an issue, but it is WAY DOWN on the list of thingls I (and others) should care about. For heavens sake, IF they are well enough to get through a campaign, then they are in some reasonable form of health. 

This HAS become a campaign about nothing and I blame the press for a lot of this. 

I put a candidate's health a bit higher on the list. I agree that the brutality of the campaign gives decent insight into a candidate's stamina, but we also need to be forward looking as we're voting not just for now, but for the next 4 years. 

And I am not sure how the press can be blamed for the state of this particular campaign. The press can only report on what the campaign gives them. Trump offers nothing. Clinton, only slightly more. 

We just need to hang tight until the debates. That should finally get us to the nuts and bolts of some key issues.
 

Well good press people USED to dig for stories and info rather than just waiting for it to be handed to them. There are a few still around but not many that do this anymore. We are now in a 24 hr news cycle of nothing as it pertains to the election. 

 

I think there is some very good reporting going on. The Wash Post reporter who has doggedly dug into the Trump Foundation. The reporters who have gone through tens of thousands of e-mail that were found on the Clinton e-mail server and the Clinton Foundation. 

There is a trove of information out there.

So the question becomes, why aren't those stories picking up traction? I say it's because the public wants the salacious and not the substantive.

I'm sure experiments have been done, but I would hypothesize that if you look at the web clicks between Donald Trump's or Hillary Clinton's economic plans and some tabloid-esque story of Trump's marriage or Clinton's health, the tabloid stories will win out 10-1 

TheLagerLad wrote:

tennyson wrote:

TheLagerLad wrote:

I put a candidate's health a bit higher on the list. I agree that the brutality of the campaign gives decent insight into a candidate's stamina, but we also need to be forward looking as we're voting not just for now, but for the next 4 years. 

And I am not sure how the press can be blamed for the state of this particular campaign. The press can only report on what the campaign gives them. Trump offers nothing. Clinton, only slightly more. 

We just need to hang tight until the debates. That should finally get us to the nuts and bolts of some key issues.
 

Well good press people USED to dig for stories and info rather than just waiting for it to be handed to them. There are a few still around but not many that do this anymore. We are now in a 24 hr news cycle of nothing as it pertains to the election. 

 

I think there is some very good reporting going on. The Wash Post reporter who has doggedly dug into the Trump Foundation. The reporters who have gone through tens of thousands of e-mail that were found on the Clinton e-mail server and the Clinton Foundation. 

There is a trove of information out there.

So the question becomes, why aren't those stories picking up traction? I say it's because the public wants the salacious and not the substantive.

I'm sure experiments have been done, but I would hypothesize that if you look at the web clicks between Donald Trump's or Hillary Clinton's economic plans and some tabloid-esque story of Trump's marriage or Clinton's health, the tabloid stories will win out 10-1 

I agree that there has been some in depth reporting and digging. I have used many of those here, however they are the few and far between. The sad fact is that many staffs have been decimated in what were traditional news gathering sources and replaced by newsrooms that are built on a business model vs a news model. We are the losers. BWT, I would bet your 10-1 is closer to 100-1 or higher.