The media has adopted a "game" approach to politics. They tell us who is up, who is down, who is ahead, and who is behind. This approach makes it easy to write about politics, but has absolutely no relation to how politics affects the average American. Indeed, this approach leads to the public thinking that there is no relationship between who is elected and their lives.
The reason why they adopt the "game" approach is that media reporters and commentators are not players in politics in the sense that they get to hold elected office and actually make decisions. They can only report and influence. Such a role really takes on significance when they have elections to report on, which is why they try to make everything about elections and/or campaigns.
They are like sports writers. They love their "game" but don't have the skill, drive, or guts to play it, so they become reporters and cover others. Unlike sports writers, however, they are covering decision makers who have tremendous impact on people's lives.
Every so often an event like Katrina or 9-11 takes place and they are reminded that politics is important not because of who wins or loses but what those winners do with the power they are given. Consequently, for a short time, they cover politics more seriously, but then sooner or later they go back to covering it like a "game."
Another problem is that too many of these commentators and reporters are members of an educated and well-compensated elite of Americans. They don't worry about availability of health insurance, or good schools, or degrading of the environment because they make enough money that they don't have to worry about these things. Consequently they don't push politicians on those issues, instead they focus on sex, (which they apparently obsess over, especially oral sex, ie, Clinton-Lewinsky), and other such scandals.
People want political coverage that they can relate to their lives. They want to know how the decisions made in D.C. affect them, and they want to know what they can do about such decisions. They approach politics not from a "game" theory but from a "governing" theory. They are, however, not getting such journalism from the media.
We are not sure what we can do about this state of affairs, other than start and encourage our own media outlets. Outlets that will relate political decisions to the lives of Americans.
____________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the reprinting of the above without attribution.
1 comment:
“*” Or, What George W. Bush Really Meant…
I am Craig James, and I am addicted to Middle East oil. There I’ve said it, and according to popular traditional opinion, I can now begin my recovery. Until I saw this article I foolishly believed that I’d be assisted in that recovery by the self proclaimed, minority approved, Supreme Court appointed King of Compassionate Conservatives, George W. Bush. Apparently, the straight-talkin’ Texan requires a special set of GOP decoder hearing aids that process his actual spoken words and squeeze out the “intent” of what he truly means when he leans in earnestly, smirks and squints, then recites the words written for him, by the people he hires to write them.
Are ya with me now? (I’m both squinting and smirking as I type to add ambience). In February 2, 2006 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Bureau writer Kevin G. Hall reported in his story, “No Farewell to Middle East Oil” that according to two Bush Administration aides, when the plain-spoken President actually speaks plainly, he shouldn’t be taken “literally.” Hall quotes Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman saying when referring to Bush’s energy initiatives introduced in Tuesdays’ State of the Union speech, “This was purely an example.”
I would tend to agree. In recent history, even leading up to today, the President’s statements require a filter from the realm of the spoken word, over into that most personal part of the process; what he “meant” when he said it. When he said that he was proposing a “bold initiative” that would “free us from our addiction to foreign oil,*” perhaps what he meant was; “*Ya know, I uh, think that after my family and uh, everybody I care about has no more ties to the oil bidness, and the money it makes, we’ll kinda take some of it and um, buy them solar accent lights for the White House sidewalks.*”
After surviving the Clinton Presidency, and the uproar in the halls of Congress over Clinton’s legal wrangling over what “is” is, I’m more than a little tired of disclaimer politics and alibi leadership.
One of the most offensive things I see happening is the continued faint-hearted approach by media of all leanings, simply reporting on these types of statements and maneuverings then just walking away. In print and broadcast form, the major news organizations seem to fear being painted as extremists for holding those in office accountable for what they say and how that message is decoded later. When an elected official is asked a question, citizens need not concern themselves with the “intent” of the answer when the intent of the question is so clear.
For instance, in 2004 President Bush was specifically asked about what would become the currently inflamed issue of domestic surveillance and its effect on privacy, he leaned in, he smirked, and he explained in a tone meant to assure the most sheltered and ignorant of us workin’ folk that; “Look, ya gotta have a court order to wiretap a phone call in America. Nuthin’s changed.*” *apparently he meant: “* The Constitution gives the President of the United States the right to spy domestically without court intervention during a time of war.” This according to every statement made by administration sources from The White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
See how you can get those two answers all turned around in yer purdy little head. I mean, I say indictable, Bush says “Hindsight is not wisdom.*” I say unconstitutional, He says “Freedom is on the March.*” Mr. Bush says a country like Iran deserves to be considered a part of the Axis of Evil because it’s a nation; “held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating its people*.” I say, exactly; I feel their pain.
Post a Comment