‘Reporters will choose to write about flag pins’
Paul Waldman had a great item yesterday on a subject that never ceases to amaze me: how political reporters choose to cover the presidential candidates and their campaigns.
Reporters will choose to write about flag pins. They will choose to write about whether some catastrophic, heretofore hidden character flaw has been revealed by a comment a candidate made, or by a comment somebody who knows the candidate made. They are not merely conduits for the campaign’s discourse, they create the campaign’s discourse, as much as the candidates themselves.
Ah, but didn’t Hillary Clinton criticize Barack Obama over his “bitter” comments? Doesn’t that justify a week of relentless, repetitive discussion? Yes, she did (as he has criticized her before on matters equally trivial). But on that day, she probably held half a dozen campaign events and talked about a hundred different things. Had reporters wanted, they could have written stories about what she said about health care, the economy, Iraq, or just about anything else. They chose instead to write about this. The time is long past for them to stop pretending they have nothing to do with how trivial a campaign becomes.
But don’t hold your breath. Political reporters will cling to their long-held conceit that they are but observers whose own choices have no impact on the campaign’s progression. They are a clean, empty pipe through which the impressions and beliefs of the public flow unimpeded. But the act of observing the campaign doesn’t just alter the campaign, it is the campaign. If reporters decide something is an “issue,” than an issue it will be. If they decide to ignore something, it will disappear from the news, and eventually from voters’ minds.
Quite right. And as Ezra added, “On some level, the media gets this — it’s the essential conflict of interest that runs like the San Andreas fault line right through the center of the profession. But because they haven’t figured out a way to it, they by and large refuse to talk about it, because if you talk about it, then it’s real, and you’re both open to the criticism and obligated to figure out a transparent fix.”
Waldman’s column was driven in large part to last week’s Democratic debate on ABC, it’s obvious flaws, and the reaction that ensued. He noted David Brooks’ widely-read quote in defense of the event: “We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall.”
They’re important, of course, because Brooks and his colleagues are in a position to decide what’s important. The public has to care, in large part because news outlets are telling them they should.
I can’t remember if I’ve written about this or not, but one of the common defenses of the debate last week was that no political discussion can be solely about policy. People would get bored. In a debate or interview, there has to be at least some combination to keep things moving and lively.
I don’t disagree, but the defense misses the point.
To me, there are two key problems with the media’s emphasis on trivia, mini-controversies, and the buzz of the day. The first is emphasis — I know there’s going to be some interest and coverage of some minor flap or another, but on a daily basis, it’s wildly disproportionate. That was one of the jarring things about last week’s debate — not that there were some questions about the various distractions, but that there were 15 questions about the distractions that constituted the entire first half of the event.
The second is that, too often, the media takes trivia and decides it really isn’t trivia at all. Instead of mindless coverage of some inconsequential flap or gaffe, an outlet or media personality will insist that the flap or gaffe deserves to be elevated into a national controversy, worthy of serious and genuine analysis. So, when Obama bowls a 37, it’s not just a punch-line or the subject of good-natured ribbing, it becomes an excuse to scrutinize Obama’s manliness and his ability to connect with small-town voters. If he orders orange juice at a diner, it’s the same thing. Clinton’s laugh drew similar scrutiny, as did the price of Edwards’ haircuts.
It’s not enough to highlight the sideshow; the media wants people to believe the sideshow is a serious issue. That’s the problem.
“The time is long past for [media figures] to stop pretending they have nothing to do with how trivial a campaign becomes.” It would be nice.
There’s one more reason why reporters choose to cover irrelevant drama-trivia instead of issues that matter: everyone can hold forth on trivia with relatively equal credibility.
If the subject is on health care, or foreign policy, etc, not everyone might feel comfortable discussing it, because holding forth on a complex discussion might reveal their ignorance.
But when it comes to flag pins, anyone with an asshole can gab forth without fear.
You left out one more important point, and that is that the media does not subject Republicans to the same treatment. That is a big problem.
Third, the trivia, more often than not, isn’t even true. Not only is it trivial, not only do they make it seem like it means much when it means nothing, Obama didn’t refuse to put his hand on his heart during the pledge. Not only should we not be spending 45 minutes on such nonsense, we shouldn’t devote 45 seconds to things they know aren’t true.
And fourth, the media will never, ever make shit up about McCain, and slam him for weeks over trivial matters. They won’t even discuss very serious transgressions he’s actually guilty of.
So, to recap: 1) It’s bullshit 2) it’s trivial bullshit, 3) the MSM blows up the trivial bullshit into the Most Important Issue of the campaign, and 4) even if it’s not trivial, or bullshit, if it’s a Republican, they’ll ignore it.
Ah, but didn’t Hillary Clinton criticize Barack Obama over his “bitter” comments? Doesn’t that justify a week of relentless, repetitive discussion? Yes, she did (as he has criticized her before on matters equally trivial).
A pox on both houses, but an example for only one.
The “Assault on Reason” continues…
Much like the Bush Administration’s awful policies, fixing the political discourse in America is doomed because no one wants to take responsibility. Members of the media will tell us it’s OUR fault for being fascinated by the trivial, and to a degree they have a point; there ARE lots of people who don’t want to think about politics beyond whether or not they like the candidate in question, and surface B.S.. On the flip side, you have angry Americans arguing that the media needs to elevate the discourse and explain to people that they MUST care about this country enough to try to understand it, to seek out information, to engage, to act. Once you start dumbing down the process, well, there will always be some people who will think: Even dumber! Why not? Dumb it down more! It’s is the responsibility of responsible citizens, who put the welfare of the nation beyond their own, to not take that bait.
Too bad all the a-holes are the ones getting news gigs.
FYI - I read on Huffpost or somewhere that ABC News Ratings have been down significantly since the debate. Good work friends.
Me? My permanent boycott of ABC News and ABC News online continues.
As true as that is, you forgot one key thing: the media only reports the sideshow when it comes to Democrats.
I don’t want to sound like sour grapes or anything, but think about political coverage since Reagan. With the exception of Dan Quayle, name me another Republican whose every gaffe is highlighted as some revelation of a candidate’s character … show me the Wall Street Journal op-ed analyzing Bush’s or Dole’s or Bush’s wardrobe, the way Al Gore’s was … show me where they treated Bush clearing brush on his estate (sorry, no animals or crops makes it an estate, not a ranch) the same way they treated Kerry windsurfing … show me where McCain’s constant flip-flops are being held to the same scrutiny as Kerry’s alleged ones.
I could keep going, but you all get the point — the media only care about asinine issues when those asinine issues involve Democrats, while the Republicans get a free pass.
As will mine.
Of course, there’s very little in this world that could keep from watching Boston Legal. That show is teh awesome (and last night’s rant on the Supreme Court was frickin’ genius)!!
Brooks and his colleagues are in a position to decide what’s important. The public has to care, in large part because news outlets are telling them they should.
On the tombstone of the Republic will be the epitaph “Killed By A Story Arc”.
Mine, too, Joe. In fact, I boycott pretty much everything ABC and Disney.
I’m almost to the point of boycotting all television news period. I’m so fed up with these gasbags and their bloated egos - even Lehrer has become insufferable. They’ve been screwing us for years. I say it’s time to screw them back.
I think if we count the number of comments we make on this blog about flag pins and other trivia far outnumber the comments generated about substantive issues. The my candidate is nicer than your candidate post really get the comments flowing.
Tamalak@1 sees part of the problem correctly. I would add that the pontificating heads spend a great deal of time casting about for “issues” that they all commonly accept and then beat to death on nights such as last night’s event. They really must love the times. They sit there tying to find and agree on some theme about the current event. And when they do, oh my! All other questions become irrelevant. They manufacture trivia (framed by corporate limitations) because they are lazy, it’s easy, are the show goes on.
Joe (8):I must admit I have for years had two TV’s on side by side every minute I was home. Now I watch Olbermann, Daily Show and Colbert plus sports. But more importantly, I don’t think “trivial” is the right word. They are enabling an immoral war, the disintegration of democracy, the downfall of a progressive society, and the corruption of the greatest economy on earth. I’d call it unpatriotic in the extreme.
Instead of an elevation of discourse and an exploration of new paths we get stuck in mind numbing minutiae and intrigue. The media are very central to the concept of group think. And don’t forget it was group think exploited by the administration and greased by the media that brought us 911 (the omission) and got us into the Iraq war (the commission). The process becomes not so much the selection of a leader but the setting of limits on what the candidates can think, say, postulate or propose. We are in desperate need of a new vision but the process pretty well kills any means of moving on to alternate paths.
Tamalak@1 sees part of the problem correctly. I would add that the pontificating heads spend a great deal of time casting about for “issues” that they all commonly accept and then beat to death on nights such as last night’s event. They really must love the times. They sit there tying to find and agree on some theme about the current event. And when they do, oh my! All other questions become irrelevant. They manufacture trivia (framed by corporate limitations) because they are lazy, it’s easy, are the show goes on. The don’t choose as much as sort of lumber towards consensus.
CB — Sorry about two entries, somethin’ is screwy here.
While I think there’s some truth to the idea that in the MSM reporters decide what to report, much of the time, I suspect it’s the editors and managers who tell reporters what to cover and in effect what to report on. I think you find this is very much the case with McCain coverage. Much of the time, if the reporter isn’t already ‘charmed’ by McCain, there’s usually a powerful editor whose bias seeps in to the reporting.
Needless to say, it almost always with a right-wing slant.
Well, at least it’s a change from the standard cable news theme for every show for the last three months: what does Hillary have to do to win? Yawn, zzzzzzzzzz
This campaign is starting to remind me of baseball - the season lasts so long there is no beginning or end, it just wraps around the entire calendar year. In fact it runs longer than a year. I think last Thanksgiving we had the 2006 World Series. They’ve gotten that far behind.
I keep thinking that sooner or later we’ll run out of states to have primaries in, but I’m afraid what’s really going to happen is that suddenly in July the 2012 primary in Arkansas will come up, and here we go again.
Please, Hillary, for the sake of all humankind, surrender. You”ve put up a Herculean, heroic struggle, but it’s killing the rest of us.
There are too many ignorant voters out there. This is how we ended up with the Bush incompetency. Too many voters don’t want to do the hard work of searching out the true information, then evaluating the policy. The media gets better ratings when they make it easy. They think those health care plans are just boring. Aren’t all these politicians the same, anyway?It’s why the idea of actually reading a book is not so popular anymore.
The media is acting just like elites in declining empires always have. So is the government, the military and the financial sector. Read history, or any of Kevin Phillips’ books, if you don’t believe me.
Dale, @12, absolutely nails it; even here, the more serious subjects get much less attention than the trivial bits.
“Too many voters don’t want to do the hard work of searching out the true information, then evaluating the policy.”
I agree Jim. The MSM is (to me) conservative by nature. Most of these media companies really care only about revenue, and the easiest path to it. That usually means sucking up to those in power - in this case the Right-Wing/Conservatives. I think it’s also part of their strategy to simplify even trivialize issues, in an effort to deceive, confuse, play up things like pins and other frivolous issues, in an effort to weed out people who aren’t as informed. Combine that with non-stop Drudge-style, tabloid-like exploits, and/or reducing the actual coverage of policy and issues, the net effect is a segement of voters who are uninformed, turned off, or tuned out.
This allows the right-wing to effectively take over, even with the slightest of margins (as in 2000, and 2004).
But I think it’s really a losing batte to keep constantly fighting with the MSM over it. Why?
(take the whole Charles Gibson/capital gains tax issue from the last debate) -
Gibson said something patently false. Obama didn’t refute it as well as I liked. The next day it’s reported in the MSM. Those of us who blog or are online find out the truth and post corrections.
The problem is I think most people who watch TV don’t tune into bloggers. So they rarely if ever see the falsehood debunked with fact. And unless the falsehood is challenged in real-time by the candidate, or consistently debunked on the campaign trail, no one who saw the debate will see that correction. The viewer is left with the false talking point, and that will shape much of their thinking going forward. This how I think the media in this country works to keep that certain % of voters either turned off, our tuned out.
The only way to effectively combat this is by getting out and talking to people you know, and start informing them about real issues. Don’t trust the media, or even the candidates to do it for you. The goal isn’t to get them to vote a certain way, but rather to see and think for themselves, based on all the information.
Next time you hear someone complain about the price of gas, their mortgage, the price of food, the war in Iraq, ask them why do they complain, who do they hold responsible, what are they doing about it. Often times in such situations I’ve heard people say “Well that’s the government!” Or “I hate politics”, or “All the politicians are the same”.
At times there will be valid sentiments aired. Don’t be rude - it’s easy to criticize someone for being ignorant. It’s harder to get them to see their ways when being arrogant. The key is, when you hear what they say, point them to the facts. That means being informed about the issues myself. I tell people to not take my word about what I say - go see for yourself if I’m right. Get them to really think about it. And remind them that by not acting, by not taking part, things will not get better.
In effect, what you are doing is getting people to bypass the MSM, learn to see facts on their own, and think for themselves.
The only real way to effect change in a democracy is by getting more people to think for themselves and participate in the process. That can be done when people are educated by the facts, not someone’s spin. The more educated people are by what’s going on in this country, the greater the chances of them being compelled to act.
This is, of course, one of the biggest challenges to Obama’s “movement.” His candidacy is predicated on changing the way politics works. But that requires (a) that the media is willing to change or that he can sufficiently get around the media if it insists on “politics as usual”; and (b) that voters are informed and get the message in sufficient numbers — because while they love to complain about things, voters are generally too lazy to change, too, and secretly seem to like the tabloid stories that pass for political discourse, even in times of war and recession.
It is a noble effort, but if the fundamental premise turns out to be impossible, I’m not sure where that leaves the rest of what he seeks to accomplish.
A lot of good comments , especially #8 with specific Dem/Repub contrasts.
Bush ranch has no live stock or crops. Just brush to clear.
More a Hollywood prop than an estate.
Ever seen Bush, the Great Cowboy, on a horse? Even near one?
Lots of photo-ops with the pick-up truck as just a Good Old Boy.
Bush cycling like many uppies vitually hidden unless an accident occurs.
But Kerry gets blasted as an elitist for wind surfing and skiing.
Bush has a mispent youth = heavy drinking to point where wife threatens to leave marriage unless he changes, when he was in his early 40s I think.
So he spent 20 plus years refining his drinking style and got good at it.
The MSM theme is he is the guy one would want to have a beer with and this qualified him to be President. Pretty positive spin from the MSM.
It boils down to
Every Dem molehill blown up to a mountain.
Every Repub mountain reduced to a molehill.
The Daily Howler has been documenting this pattern for over 10 years.
Great site that details how MSM has a double standard for Dem/Repubs
and also details how “Liberal/Progressive” writers ignore it.
Important that bloggers and commentors push back against trivia and slanted coverage across the board whether with writers, editors, sponsers or advertisers for papers, TV and radio.
Silent boycotting is not enough.
Hey, the kids from planet Obama are finally catching on. The MSM hates Democrats. Gee, you’re several decades late, but thanks for catching up to the rest of us.
Here’s how to rate the best Democratic candidate. Who does the media hate the most? The MSM has been coddling Obama because they know he’s a creampuff who doesn’t stand a chance in November. Hillary has been getting Gored from day one. But you know what? Despite the horseshit from the MSM and their partners in the alternative universe of the left wing blogoshpere, she just keeps on coming.
Obama is a pussy who runs and hides when the going gets tough. Christ, now he’s afraid of Katie Couric. Yeah, and this guy is going to lead the country. Hillary will go toe to toe with anybody.
Olbermann calls her a shameless racist. He denigrates her at every turn. What does she do? She comes on his show, sits across from him and says lets go. Take your best shot. And he ain’t got the balls to call her out to her face.
The MSM including phony liberals like Olbermann, Maddow, Toobin, et al. are just tools to help get McCain elected. They don’t mind. Their careers come before ethics.
Hmmmmmmm…
…I gotta ask this…
…when does the so-called blogosphere become part of main stream media?
Sorry, Steve…but your site…and Andrew Sullivan’s site…and Drum’s site…and Arianna’s site…and Kos’s site…and Malkin’s site…and even a site like Lucienne…well…you all shape public opinion…for better or worse.
You’re not sitting at the kitchen table spouting off to your wife and sister-in-law any longer! You have a popular blog (other-wise known as a WEBSITE!!!), dedicated to your political rants, that many people not only enjoy, but also “accept” as a part of conventional wisdom…whether they agree or disagree. That’s correct, sir…they sometimes accept your opinoin(s) as conventional wisdom even if they disagree with you.
What’s important about that last point is that you DO INDEED help shape public opinion.
What really pisses me off about your posts and all the other great blogs out there is that constant separation of what the “MSM” has to say and what you have to say!
Stop putting yourselves down (my opinion)!
There are literally millions of americans out there who would rather get their news, and even their opinions. from websites like this (or, unfortunately, Malkin’s and the like).
As I see it, you have a 2 options:
1. accept what you call the MSM as the MSM and continue on.
2. accept that you are a part of the “new school” MSM and challenge the “old schoolers” to keep up with you!
Help force the Tim Russets of the world to be who they were supposed to be!
Good Night and Good Luck!
That’s my rant for this month…
junior
But my God, hasn’t anyone heard that Obama turned down coffee for orange juice–OJ!!!
In a DINER!!!
On the other hand, McCain likes donuts with sprinkles. Doesn’t anybody get it? This is really important stuff here.
STOP WATCHING CABLE PROGRAMS (except Olberman, of course). See it doesn’t work. We’re all addicts. We just have to drown out the corporate Republican programs. We can do it. Fox must be trivialized to fringe status. We need the support of real democrats. Not fake ones like Terry what’s his foot and Ed Rendell. Obama must win or it will never stop!!!!
I saw Obama on with Jon Stewart last night and he responded to Jon the way I would like to see him respond to the MSM. Stewart asked him if he would pull an about face when he becomes President and enslave whites. Obama laughed and said, “No, and I think your question qualifies you to be the moderator of the next debate…”
The quickest way to get BS off the market is to call it BS as soon as it comes out of someone’s mouth. Embarrass a few of the MSM in real time and they’ll learn to stop it. The problem is that ridiculous questions are answered as if they were substantive.