A Pause for a Meta Moment
I ranted to a "60 Minutes" producer that the campaign coverage was shallow, trivial, preoccupied with the evanescent ups and the electrifying downs, the insiders' moods, the rumors and gaffes, and incurious about the candidates' records, and the weight or weightlessness of their arguments, the truth and untruth of their claims, and seemingly indifferent to the stakes of the most consequential election on earth. "I know, I know," he said. "We talk constantly about how to do it better next time."
That was in 1980.
Seven presidentiads later, the horse race is still in play, the handicappers thrive however shoddy their records (talk about people who don't have to put their money where their mouths are!), and still more blowhards blow harder, and mainline adrenaline, and fall in and out of love like middle-schoolers, and extapolate to the moon from the most recent primaries, and trot out their new improved story lines, and pretend that they have the slightest idea what's going to happen next; and we become connoisseurs of our own bamboozlement.
Why such a high ratio of noise to light? In The Nation online, Chris Hayes makes a case that the frantic joy of the coverage stems from the fact the politics reporter is
an outsider, standing on the edges observing the people who are there doing the actually stuff of politics: listening to a candidate, cheering, participating. So reporters run with that distance: they crack wise, they kibbitz in the back, they play up their detachment....[S]ome of the worst features of campaign reporting emanate from the kinds of psychological defenses that reporters erect to deal with their insecurities.
In the same vein, Jay Rosen at Tomdispatch treats media mindlessness as a desperate spasm of overcompensation. The knowingness of the journalists is a cover-up--the patter of scramblers who don't dare admit how little they know. The horse race, Rosen says, is what enables the color commentators to "play up their detachment":
Focusing on the race advertises the political innocence of the press because "who's gonna win?" is not an ideological question. By asking it you reaffirm that yours is not an ideological profession. This is experienced as pleasure by a lot of mainstream journalists.
He's got something. The particular pleasure he writes about is real--and cheap. What you feel as a "reporter" during the near-permanent campaign is the rush of those moments when you've placed your chips and indulged your system and the roulette wheel is spinning and the bettor is gloriously...focused...and beyond criticism, undisappointed...suspended, you might say, in the mendacity of hope and a false reputation for knowledge.
At least when a politician loses, he or she suffers some loss of reputation. But no pundit, no vicar of vicariousness, no phony insider, ever suffers for fatuousness or bad prophecy or (all honor to Matt Yglesias for the phrase) "the unbearable inanity of Tim Russert." The worst career move would be to acknowledge how little you know.
Gimme a friggin' break. Who, outside a tiny number of nerds, wants to listen to nothing but policy? The dirty not-so-secret fact is that the networks cover the horserace and focus on trivialities because that's what their audience wants. Do you think most people, even political junkies, would rather discuss the finer points of Obama's economic stimulus plan vs. Hillary's or would they rather read about who's pulling ahead in the next big contest? It isn't even close.
Plus the fact is that there are plenty of resources available for people who are interested in policy or other more "substantive" part of the campaign. The New York Times has run dozens of in-depth profiles of the candidates. Various worthies debate the differences between the candidates on shows like the NewsHour on PBS. C-SPAN has tons of programming that is useful for people looking for substance. There are blogs galore that dissect every nuance of every position every candidate has. But don't expect the networks to cover this stuff in too much depth because it isn't how most people make up their minds about the candidates. It isn't what most people WANT to listen to.
Presumably you know this. Are you suggesting that the mainstream media should force a more "substantive" coverage down the throats of the public?
The only thing more tiresome than some of the coverage of the campaign is the constant whining about said coverage by people who can't accept that most of the public isn't as "substantive" as they are.
January 20, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Audiences have been known to want what they get (c’mon, The Brady Bunch?), but even if triviality was what the public wanted, would that condone it? We’re talking about the election of the leaders of America and, in effect, the free world. I would say that there are more than a few people in this world who may have more serious stakes in this and may not be as cavalier as you about that choice. It may be true that many viewers have become more inured of the life and times of Brittany and Paris than Hillary and Mitt but that has more to do with the vegetative nature of TV and our National Enquirer gotcha press than a rejection of political information. If there is a growing rejection of a sense of civic obligation, should that just be accepted?
I think the middle class and poor have always had less time for pondering affairs of state. But I have not had one discussion with a friend or family member or acquaintance, that I can remember, centered on who was leading who in any given race. I have had many discussions about who is ultimately viable and what this or that candidate is really about and who might be best able to turn the country around from the last jokers foisted on us by a character-creating media. Most people have more individual concerns like job prospects or sending their kids to war.
Besides, this election campaign with endless debates has been pretty substantive until the last month or so.The old canard about ‘giving ‘em what they want’ has been the excuse for dumping lowest-denominator garbage on the public since the rise of mass media. The problem in our elections is that since Ronald Reagan showed the political puppet masters how to really play the media with flash over substance with the flag-waving pose, it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy or “what the public wants.” That must have been around 1980- hmm, about the time of the Prof. Gitlin’s question.
January 20, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to focus on the title "meta Moment". We are doing meta thinking. All the bread and circuses stuff is a given. Point is why do they run in packs and what makes them trash one candidate and boost another?
It is not merely an academic question because it determines who gets elected and that determines what happens to our country.
January 20, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There would be no glory in "pundits" sitting around the table talking about the differences in positions of Clinton and Obama on the subject of the UN or Sudan. That would just be reporting. And, reporting is hard work, far beyond the amount of work a "pundit" ever wants to do.
During the election cycle people hear a lot of speaking by various candidates, some of whom obviously know a lot about the job they seek. No "pundit" would ever be interested in standing aside and letting those candidates be the stars of the moment. All it takes to get out in front of them, steal the microphone, so to speak, is to treat the candidates as inferiors, who couldn't possibly understand an issue as well as a "pundit" does.
That makes it inevitable that the Russerts of the media will be seen as all knowing "pundits". After all they do tell us that they know everything often enough.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 20, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Todd
I know how you feel, because that’s how I felt, but this is what I found. I truly believe that the majority of Americans have become arrogant; they don’t care about much, except their own selfish gain.
The media is the tool by the powers to entertain only, or to misdirect people’s minds off of reality.
It takes less effort to be clueless. People really don’t care. Mind you there are some very concerned citizens who moan and groan at what passes as vital information, but the majority are lazy, satisfied with complaining, but never finding a solution. For lack of commitment, to finding out the truth, constantly mislead by liars, leading to the end of their existence. Going so far as to mock the truth or find sport in ridiculing those who tell the truth.
The Mainstream media has the same attitude as Col. Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson), the base commander in the movie “A Few Good Men”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_handle_the_truth
Jessup: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?…… You have the luxury of not knowing what I know:…… ...You don't want the truth….. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way………
Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to! "
That Todd, is mainstream media, they don’t give a damn.
January 20, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, the natural inclination is to stay away from harsh realities and seek entertainment.
January 20, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So true
Not to veer too far from your excellent point, the question becomes how or why is it that the media condenses around a quasi "conventional wisdom" at any given time. They run in packs across the different outlets (the various print and television outlets).
One suggestion is since they have no real clue as to what is really going on they need to re-enforce each other to make "the story" plausible to the consumers of their product. And sure enough the so called inside-knowledge they peddle more often than not becomes the conventional wisdom across America.
Also, they are not above having their own political agenda.
For example: any fair minded person would question the incessant criticism (implied or outright) by the media of certain politicians. They had it in for Al Gore, that's for sure and they have it in for Hillary Clinton.
Now ask yourself this: why would they run in packs against this or that candidate if not that they are acting as the adjuncts to the powers that be.
I just happened to run across the following little article that appeared in the National Review Online on May 25, 2005 by Rachel Zabarkes Friedman on Hillary's supposed (in)fidelity to the AIPAC line.
Read it for yourself:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/friedman200505251257.asp
Apparently at AIPAC they are not at all certain how reliable Hillary is going to be for carrying out the wishes of the Likud/AIPAC crowd.
I'm not saying that the anti Hillary bias in the media is directly orchestrated by these folks, but--besides my previous idea that they run in packs because it makes them more credible--they most likely also pick on politicians ( or boost others) due to the pressures exerted on them by the Corporate Media itself.
January 20, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Now ask yourself this: why would they run in packs against this or that candidate if not that they are acting as the adjuncts to the powers that be.
Why would the corporate media care who wins? The entire mainstream political spectrum of the US is so narrow that no one remotely viable is any sort of threat to their interests. And when was tghe last time anyone proposed regulating the news media? As long as the politcians provide them with fodder for the news mill they will sell their product. Maybe that's why they were against Al Gore: not because of his policies at all, but because he was more boring than George Bush (and say what you will about Bush, he has certainly been good for news!) As for Hillary, I don't see the media as being biased against her at all. Sure they play up the horse-race aspect of her contest with Obama (ignoring Edwards) since it has the interesting angle of woman vs Black guy, but ultimately I suspect she weill be their favorite, come Novenmber.
January 21, 2008 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
What on earth are you smoking? "Why would the corporate media care ...?"
They have regulatory concerns or have you missed the media consolidation hearings at the FCC? The FCC has 5 members. Each party sends up 2 for appointment. The President picks the 3rd, always from his own party. The most recent loosening of FCC regulations passed 3-2, all GOP members voted for looser regulations, the 2 Democrats voted no. In 2004 the head of Viacom (CBS)said that he, personally, was a Democrat but he would support Republicans because it meant more money for Viacom. If you really think that the "political spectrum of the US is so narrow that no one remotely viable is any sort of threat to their interests" then you haven't been paying much attention.
When you say "when was the last time anyone proposed regulating the news media?" you don't seem to understand that it's not content it's total ownership, cross media matters within markets, internet access, etc. It's about money and its conflict with the public interest. That makes it political as the record in recent years clearly shows.
A different issue is the way national political reporters cover campaigns. The press famously hated Gore and the record of their coverage of the 2000 elections is replete with evidence of that hatred.
Insofar as the press treatmnent of Hillary Clinton is concerned you've missed that the press has had an axe to grind on her since the Clintons first moved into the White House. You might try reading a Maureen Dowd column or a Margaret Carlson article about Hillary some day just to get a feel for where the press is at. Your idea that they'll love her if she's nominated has got to be a joke or you're one of the most poorly informed people on the planet. Either that or you just don't get what you're reading or seeing.
The point is that the press covers all elections whether primary or general like a horse race and write articles that betray their personal feelings. A storyline for a given contest is adopted and nothing can interfere with that storyline. That's the reason that the Edwards candidacy has been ignored and why early coverage of Edwards was petty and negative.
Shortly after the Edwards haircut story spread, a story in the Boston Globe detailed an incident concerning Mitt Romney's blunt callous cruelty to the family dog. The story buzzed about the liberal blogosphere briefly but wasn't picked up past the article in the Globe. The explanation for this was that many in the press thought that Romney would be a frontrunner and they backed off the story, but, they didn't consider Edwards a frontrunner so they made him fair game. A pathetic and telling excuse that made no sense.
The reporting of personal matters often betrays the way reporters feel about a candidate. The substance free horse race frame, the bread and butter staple of daily copy and TV talk substitutes for reporting policy and substantive issues.
January 21, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Re: They have regulatory concerns or have you missed the media consolidation hearings at the FCC?
You seem to be under the illusion that the Democrats are some radical socialist party. God grief, what have you been smoking? Do you really think Hillary Clinton or even John Edwards is going to one-up Hugo Chavez? I repeat: the Democrats are no threat to corporate intrests of any kind. There is no reason for corporations, including the media, to oppose them. Also you cite instances of the media portraying individual Democrats in a bad light. True enough, I donlt dispute those things. But they do the same with Republicans. George Bush's portrayal in the media (except Faux News of course) is profoundly negative. Any moral hypocrisy scandal involving a Republican is played to the hilt. Just because we agree with those portraits doesn't make them less negative.
January 22, 2008 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
In my view they are setting it up to be a McCain v Obama race in the general with McCain favored to win and continue the Bush foreign policy.
January 20, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
No matter how crazy this all is it is quintessentially American in its character. Having people speak what they feel is a rare honest glimpse into the foibles of all the contenders and cheerleaders on both sides. We have the establishment vs. progressives, we have race, we have gender, we have corporatism, we have religion etc etc. We need and must have this raucous discussion every four years. We should be thankful that George Bush and his ilk are powerless to control or curtail this.
January 21, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its "The Shoebox Mentality of the MSM."
The MSM all live in a Shoebox, (I call them the Munchkins) and in that Shoebox, they socialize, gossip, trade life stories, befriend, intermarry and commiserate. Their motto; "Group Think Rocks", can be seen in all they say as none of them ever think outside The Shoebox, originality not being their forte'. If one Munchkin opines that Gore is a bore, or Hillary "cackles", then this is the subject spoken of and reinforced at the next Soiree in the Shoebox. Shoebox denizens, Munchkins, rarely speak ill of Republicans, and when they do its usually constructive criticism administered with empathy, after all, they "know" what the Democrats are, blue collar people, ICK!.
The Chief Shoe is The Dean, David Broder, who's best pearl of wisdom was the idea that Bush was well situated for a surge in the polls. Mister Broder feels that Washington DC is "his" town and Democrats simply sully the pavements and think outside the box, while Republicans like Scooter Libby, who supply the Munchkins with Group Think Material, bring respect, honor and respectability to The Shoebox. The Washington Press Corps honors Mister Broder who claimed Bill Clinton "came in here and trashed the place and it isn't his place."
Tim Russert wants to replace Mister Broder as Chief Shoe and Chris Matthews wants to replace Russert. The Shoeshine boy in The Shoebox, Wolf Blitzer, is not in the running. Bob Schieffer, Katie Couric and Chris Wallace practice Shoebox Mentality religiously, regularly dipping into the Shoebox for today's Group Think Items. The Munchkins are slothful, choosing to write whatever vacuousness is coming from Drudge, Limbaugh and the right wing noise machine rather than expend shoe leather and do actual journalism.
John Edward's hair, Hillarys laughter, and Howard Dean's "scream" but not Huckabee's 'Biblical Constitution'. I look forward to reading soon some hard hitting commentary on the size of Obama's ears; drop column at the Editor's desk, pick up the voucher and take it to payroll and return home with a sense of satisfaction of a job well done.
Russert: "Does Obama have large ears and will they affect his campaign....David Broder?"
The Munchkins in The Shoebox are engaged in this utterly surreal dance where the morally blind are leading the self centered.
January 21, 2008 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice analogy, John--it reminds me of an old joke:
Q: Why was the little shoe so sad?
A: Because his daddy is a loafer, and his momma is a sneaker!
So, following your examples, the momma must be Judith Miller, and the daddy is...Jayson Blair?
;>
January 21, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
left,
hahahahaha
January 21, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm also upset with the poor coverage of the issues, but I think the blame also lies with the candidates. They don't dare discuss the issues. Anyone taking a stance on anything risks turning off those who disagree, while those who agree remain supporters.
There is a chance for loss, but none for gain.
Then there is the issue of unknowability. At some time in the future the elected official will be faced with a situation that was unanticipated. Knowing their positions on things in the past only gives a hint of what they will do. So voters are left with the task of choosing someone based upon intangibles like "experience", "compassion", "trustworthiness" and "honesty". In other words they have to pick someone based upon an emotional connection to the candidate. What else is there to go on?
The problem is not so much that the media reports fluff, but that it reports so much fluff over such a long period of time. All this does is run up the cost of a campaign which gives the big money interests an even greater influence. The way to fix this would be through some comprehensive reforms of the electoral process.
This could include any or all of:
Publicly financed campaigns.
Restrictions on TV advertising (duration or cost).
Shortening the time allowed for campaigning.
Tightening up funding sources.
Reform of the lobbying industry.
Reform of civil service to cut back on political appointments.
Reform of voting procedures including access and registration.
None of these are likely to take place. The campaign industry likes its income, the lobbyists like their influence, and the Supreme Court tilts towards big business by equating money with free speech.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
January 21, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely laid out.
Even if unlikely, I usually suggest more attractive alternatives, instead of restrictions which may be hard to get past court challenge. I would propose buying time directly, as well as other venues, and making it available to candidates. Instead of horse-race debates, each candidate would get unopposed time. The window would begin at a defined time prior to election, controlling the duration of campaigning.
If government is paying directly, this short-circuits other funding, making it unattractive. Large amounts of free airtime reduces the effectiveness of lobbying and associated contributions. It also reduces the effectiveness of short TV ads, since any soundbite can be taken apart at the next half-hour candidate speech.
The principle could extend to all Congress persons, making TV, radio, print and web space available for them to communicate with constituents, although that should be specifically in their states and districts.
January 21, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You give me space to ride one of my favorite hobbyhorses out for a rare public spree --
TAX ADVERTISING, AND MOST HEAVILY TAX MEDIA NETWORKS PROMOTING THEMSELVES.
Tax Advertising. All advertising amounts to a shading of the actual truth, all advertising amounts to a corporate private tax on the public discussion space, a distortion of the citizenry's search for truth. All advertising needs to be taxed, to return some of the private gain to the public good.
I would start with a big exemption, to allow the little guy to introduce himself to the public. Any little guy running a business, pet grooming or whatever, you know how hard it is to find even $500 to introduce yourself to the public ... I would allow the first $75,000 a year of advertising by any distinct business entity to be untaxed. If you can find that much, you can spend it, un-taxed. Maybe even up to $125,000 grand per year per business unit. The big fight would be over how distinct the business entity was ... "your local Cadillac dealers," "your local McDonald's franchise-owners" could suck up a lot of exemption, so I would define it with use of trademarks and brand names to narrow it ... but if we could actually get a Congress to pass a bill taxing advertising, and it allowed that dodge, I wouldn't 'kick it out of bed' but just work on tightening the amendments in future years.
And then rates. Basic rates for print advertising could be pretty low, 4 or 5%, rising to 6% for your basic PR campaign for a business and 7% for an individual (entertainer, we presume, but anybody who buys a PR firms services for their personal name and reputation qualifies for this 7% rate), 8% for your basic radio ad over public airwaves, 12% for public broadcast TV, a point or two more for cable and satellite systems just to rein them in, up to 25% for ads using any display of violence -- say, an SUV tearing up a Western landscape or doing something us-safe on an urban roadway.
And again, if these numbers got beaten down by a point or two at the bottom, and 3 or 5 points at the top in a Congressional dogfight, it'd still be a huge victory for public responsibility and public space if Congress could pass ANY advertising tax bill.
The highest rates of all would be paid whenever Fox or NBC or anybody needs to TV broadcast what I call "a glitter box," a hypnotic pattern of light and sound to identify or characterize THEIR PRIVATE UN-ACCOUNTABLE ADVERTISING-SUPPORTED NETWORK that only exists because of the franchise we have allowed them over our public airwaves.
This, people, is the progressive policy we need to be asking for. Rein in these wild horses of private media, people, ask for a TAX ON ADVERTISING !!! Re-Claim the public discussion space on all media ! Ask for responsibility from private stretchings of the truth for private gain, repeated over and over in our public discussion space !!! TAX ADVERTISING !
January 21, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's too bad you posted under this topic after everybody left the thread, because it really is a great idea that would help in many ways. That said, it has as much chance of happening as publicly financed campaigns--because the 'powers that be' like the system the way they have it. Perhaps you should repost it in one of the economics threads?
Keep tilting at this windmill--stranger things have happened!;>
January 22, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, the people like bread and circuses, give 'em bread and circuses, eh?
Sounds reasonable...if you're a Roman Senator:
January 21, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think that the pscyhology of journalists, invoked here to explain the "horserace mentality" of media coverage of the campaigns (now, increasingly seeping into the debates as a topic for questioning the candidates, rather than even on hot-button issues like gay rights in 2004). Rather, we start out with a lack of a sense of social responsibility to having the reporters ask the candidates about the issues, and about those issues with the MOST IMPACT on the future of the world (eg global warming). They have a sense of "responsibility", but that responsibility, as with 5 months silence in 04 about the flimsiness of the flipflop spin (a CLASSIC horserace issue, if that was the concern) is to 'get with the program' and to 'justify the lying'. \
Of course, those whose function in society is precisely that ALSO have it as part of their function the DENIAL of same, all of which is 'part of the game' and 'the way life works' and 'facts of life' etc. To understand what drives reporters (who might very well seize upon the psychologizing explanation because the explanation fits the meme of justifying the lying AND insisting that one is NOT performing the function of justifying the lying) it is necessary to understand the world through their eyes AND the forces the govern and guide them -- including those very forces that drive them to lie about or cover up the fact truth in a situation. It therefore takes a certain degree of verstehen ,/i> ("understanding" in German) BUT ALSO a certain degree of insistent detachment from the agenda and memes that govern the mainstream (eg liberals hope and radicals sneer). Mere closeness to the media doesn't produce the right answers, as willingness to say what is absolutely taboo to suggest (automatically dismissed as "conspiracy theory" or worse) from their standpoint. This double-edged sword is what makes analysis of the media in our society and culture, so difficult to keep compatible with "serving" and other social ="necessities of life" .
"We all shine on"
-- John Lennon
January 21, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can't blame it all on the pundits, as bad as they may be.
The leading candidates are vacuous, mealy-mouthed non-entities, working in a culture of death. What do you expect?
Dr. Wu,The last of the big-time thinkers
January 21, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Brad, now that I know your opinion of the public's intelligence, I'll know how to iterpret your comments. Thanks for letting us know where you're coming from, pal.
January 21, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've failed to convince this one person to change his ways or even of the righteousness of your cause:
--Josh Marshall, TPM, January 22
January 22, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup.
January 22, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink