Where have they been hiding this stuff

This past weekend was Fall Break on the Ithaca College campus, and it afforded me some extra time to watch some mid-day cable news, not something I can usually catch.  Anyhow, I noticed that while there is a sufficient amount of fluff during this time, there is actually some decent reporting buried between noon and 4:00.  For instance, I almost fell out of my chair when I saw Rick Sanchez of CNN interviewing Ralph Nader the other day.  I couldn't find the video of that interview, but apparently Sanchez interviewed Nader back in July as well.  The interview I watched took place right before Wednesday's final debate, and Nader brought up his alternative views on important issues the two main candidates are not so divided on (i.e. single-payer health care, not-supporting the bailout and his plans for the economy).

In the past few posts I have been giving the mainstream media credit for doing a better job in the referee function.  As much as they have improved from past elections in that respect, I would argue they have devolved in their ability to foster a broad debate.  I have heard the phrase "starkly different" to describe John Mccain and Barack Obama more times than I can count, and this cannot be further from the truth.  As this interview shows, Ralph Nader and the two candidates are starkly different, so is Bob Barr whom Sanchez also interviewed.  This year presents a strong and interesting cast of third party candidates, none of which are getting any attention in the mainstream press.  They are lucky to get five minutes on Rick Sanchez's show...by the way, who the hell watches Rick Sanchez?

Back to my original point, which is that there is some good reporting happening in the middle of the day, while prime time is dedicated to the punditocarcy.  I also came across this clip on CNN around lunch time on Thursday.  It features Dr. Sanjay Gupta giving helpful analysis of the feasibility of John McCain's proposed health care plan-$5,000 credit whatchamacallit.  It is a well researched piece that gives the pros and cons of his plan. (Side note:  I do have to question the objectivity of any reports on health care, especially when they are accompanied by commercials for drug companies, who obviously stand to benefit from one candidate's plan more than the other.)  But back to the point at hand...why would it have been so difficult to have these experts on hand immediately after the debate to dissect the issues in this manner.  Instead we're treated to Paul Begala and Ed Rollins' pie charts of who won and Soledad O'Brien's brainless interviews with a panel of undecided voters.  Apparently, thats what prime time audiences want.  I guess the only people who want good reporting are the ones watching CNN at 1:00...so old people, housewives, and me.