For this being one of the most important, telling, and historic elections of our generation, you would think it was a wrestling match if you watch much broadcast news coverage. I’m referring specifically to the Democratic Convention coverage going on now, but I’ll further apply it to the primaries before and the Republican convention and debates to come. Everything — from news to commentary to “on the street” reporting — is cut to fit a narrative determined by, well, we just aren’t sure who or what.
I tried to watch “Morning Joe” this morning on MSNBC. Normally, I like that show but there’s something weird going on. It’s as though there is absolutely no memory on that (or most) cable news shows. No one remembers, for instance, that Obama’s nomination was a statistical miracle, that there was a reason people flocked to him in Iowa. Today, Joe Scarborough says (paraphrasing) “Hillary doesn’t have voters, she has followers. She has a movement.” This is why her movement won’t transfer over to Obama, which was the established universal narrative of Tuesday night’s media programming.
Now, Hillary may indeed have developed a movement. I, for one, thought she was more impressive as a candidate later in the process. But don’t we all remember that they said the same of Obama’s voters after Iowa, that THEY might not vote for Hillary if SHE were nominated. It’s as though they’re ignoring the fact that the Democratic party is always full of division and that many of the problems that now exist are the same (the intellectual wing vs. the lunch bucket wing) but only amplified by the way they’re being covered and the horribly twisted version of a race/gender discussion we’re getting this year (a discussion that has left women and minorities no better off than before this whole thing started). I am truly left wondering if the problem is agenda setting in the media or just rank incompetence across the board.
This is the worst media coverage of any modern election I’ve ever seen. I’m talking Fox, but even MSNBC and the networks I watch regularly. I didn’t think it could get worse than 2004, but it is much worse. There is no line whatsoever between facts and opinions, “stories” and “narratives.” It’s not a liberal or conservative bias, specifically; it’s a biased on the worst of all things: the projection of this election and American voters as vacuous and cynical, and that we can’t change anything, do anything or expect anything but deception and the same old.
Narrative: Barack Obama is simultaneously too wonkish and detached, but also too popular to be trusted.
Media-prescribed solution: Release more details, but not too many details. Be liked, but not too liked. But don’t worry, if you what we tell you we’ll report that you lack confidence and are preparing to lose. Also, we’ll do that if you don’t. Really, the problem is that your name is funny and that people think you’re a Muslim. You aren’t but we’ll report that.
I’m in full rant mode now, but let me just say that I’ve got no problem with people who are voting for McCain because they are ideologically conservative and believe in him. I would hope people voting with me for Obama are doing so because of his vision for America. But I see so many people — so very many — in my life who are voting off of the media narrative, influenced by pop nonsense, even though the stakes are so high.
There are many examples of the poor quality of the media’s handling of the Democratic convention and this election in general. Republicans, Hillary-backers and Obama-backers now share that loathing. And I’m well aware that “blaming the media” is something experts say you only do when you’re down. But this election was supposed to be the highest-minded and purist of my generation and instead it is ugly and crass, the death throws of a wealthy empire unable to navigate its place in a changing world. I expect better and now believe that the only way things will change is if the people directly and specifically reject the media narrative and vote their conscious and/or pocketbook. The problem is, no matter how this one turns out, we may never know why people voted the way they did. I’m sure the pundits will tell us, though.
The bad news:
“The people can have anything they want, the only problem is they do not want anything. Or at least they vote that way on election day.”
~Eugene Debs
The good news:
Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’
Or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’.Come writers and critics Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who
That it’s namin’.
For the loser now Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’.From “The Times they are a’ Changin'” by prominent Iron Ranger Bob Dylan. (Note that he doesn’t talk about political parties or ideologies, just the acceptance of change from one generation to the next. Change will come, even if the guy on your TV is a moron).
I’m with you every step of the way. I wrote about all of this stuff the other day as well.
The worst part of the campaign coverage this year, in my opinion, is the media’s unending focus on gaffes. I didn’t even know that was a word until this year. Everyone’s going to slip up from time to time — can’t we just freakin’ let it slide?
There is really nothing new about this. People don’t watch TV or read newspapers or listen to radio to be intellectually challenged or be made uncomfortable. As a result, the news media needs a very uncomplicated narrative that everyone is comfortable listening to.
The other thing is that the media itself has neither the time or interest to be intellectually challenged. They need a story that they can tell on deadline. So they take the stories they are handed by people who get paid to create and distribute various narratives.
“But this election was supposed to be the highest-minded and purist of my generation”
That was the media narrative. The reality was that Obama mostly put together an old-fashioned coalition of the “anybody but Clinton” voters and African-Americans. That was enough to win the nomination.
Change will come, even if the guy on your TV is a moron)
Yes, but what kind of change? Politicians have a tendency to see elections as about them. But the most important promise they make is that they can win. Because if they lose, none of their other promises have any meaning. Obama is now responsible for delivering a victory in November. If he doesn’t, we all lose and we can rightly hold him responsible for whatever damage McCain and company do.
Geez, anonymous. You’re a ball of fun.
I believed the election would be better because I used to have deep respect for John McCain (thought about voting for him in 2000) and I’ve had deep respect for Obama’s writing and rhetoric for this election. I also agree with most of his political platform, hence the support.
Obama is now responsible for delivering a victory in November. If he doesn’t, we all lose and we can rightly hold him responsible for whatever damage McCain and company do.
As he said last night, this ISN’T about him. You think I’m on board with this for the shirts? That Stevie Wonder song? This is so much bigger and more important than you indicate here. I agree with your assessment about the media narratives, but when I say “I believe” something, don’t you dare assume I’m rolling with the “media narrative.” Them’s fighting words for me.
If WE lose WE are responsible.