(time: 28:50 to 29:00)
In class we had a discussion on the Presidential Debate that took place at Hofstra University. We were talking about how some of the facts that the candidates stated were not true. A specific example of “slanting the facts” came up in our discussion on abortion and stem cell research. In the third debate, McCain reprimanded Obama for an ad stating that he is “opposed to funding stem cell research.” As we discussed it in class, I had the impression that the ad was about McCain being against abortion but supporting stem cell research. I was thinking that Obama made a good point. However, as I re-watched the third debate (time: 28:40 to 29:00) and tracked down the transcript from Obama’s radio ad, it did indeed state that McCain has “opposed stem cell research.” Using other articles, factcheck.org, and politifact.com, it appears that McCain changed his mind in 2001 and has supported both embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research ever since. In fact, both Obama and McCain voted in support of bills funding embryonic stem cell research that Bush vetoed. Both candidates misrepresent the facts. Obama’s ad falsely represents McCain’s position. However, it seems like McCain is trying to hide the fact that he supports “embryonic” stem cell research for two reasons. First, it goes against his party’s position on abortion, Pro-life. Second, Palin is against embryonic stem cell research. Thus, both candidates change and manipulate the facts to support their claims. I believe that the public audience needs to know more about the topics being discussed and the past history of the candidates. If the public knows this, they would be able to evaluate whether the candidates' comments are true or false.
Do you think that there is any way that people can be informed while the debate is occurring to find out the truth? Do you think that this is important to keep in mind when watching a political debate?
No comments:
Post a Comment