More discussion questions - 10/22

1. Mrs. Walsh was invited to the study group, Mr. Strother told us, to present a behind-the-scenes perspective of how the news is made. Quite frankly, I was very surprised by how strongly Mr. Strother denied the presence of media bias. After Jack Germond called Fox News and shows hosted by Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann pure junk, it makes me wonder if Mr. Strother would retract, or at least qualify, his argument. Was Mr. Strother correct? Did Dan Rather not pursue a personal agenda in the 2004 campaign when he failed to check his sources on the infamous story about Bush's service in the U.S. National Guard? Does he mean to say that Fox News is really fair and balanced? Are our own terministic screens not biases? Are those Democrats pursuing a renewal of The Fairness Doctrine acting irrationally?

2. At the beginning of his book, Luntz claimed that the 2008 election is more about optimism than about change. What is the difference between these two concepts? If McCain is supporting many of Bush's major policy decisions (the war, the surge, tax cuts, etc.) and Obama, in the challenger's role is crying foul, why is the public not seeing McCain as the optimist?

3. In establishing his ten rules of successful communication, Luntz claimed that credibility and consistency are of utmost importance. He cited Kerry's "I voted for it, before I voted against it" statement as an example to illustrate how changing positions can ruin political campaigns. But Obama has escaped thus far when he changed positions on offshore drilling, the success of the surge in Iraq, and campaign finance reform. Why might that be? What guidelines would you give a candidate regarding when and how to change positions in the middle of a campaign?