As a daily reader of Media Matters I was stunned to hear yesterday that CNN felt hiring the far right wingnut Erick Erickson as a paid political commentator was a good idea. Then I started thinking about it for a few seconds. It actually makes total sense, because CNN isn't a news channel anymore. Instead it is what I'd call a "news narrative" channel.
Let me provide a little background before I get to the meat of the Diary below the fold.
Many years ago a friend and I had an idea for a screen play. Since we had no clue how to actually write a screen play, we bought a few books. They all pretty much said the same thing. That a successful screen play needed to have a narrative of escalating conflict. Conflict, conflict, evermore conflict until you reach the climax. The topic or genre didn't matter, you had to have conflict.
This is now exactly what we see with our various media outlets. It is no longer just enough to report the news; they want to give us a narrative. And for that narrative to be compelling it must contain conflict.
So keeping in mind this is the business model behind our media outlets, hiring Erick Erickson makes complete sense.
INTRODUCTION: THE NEED FOR CONFLICT
Not every news story is "sexy." Some news, even if important is just pretty darn boring stuff. We've seen a perfect example of this in the past couple days. Things like self-executing rules and budget reconciliation are just processes. About as interesting as reading Robert Rules of Order.
But of course that can all be changed if you just throw in a little conflict.
That is why we hear folks that have used budget reconciliation numerous times say if the other party uses it; it would mean the end of the Senate. Maybe even our nation. Oh and change its name to the "nuclear option" and your quote gets in the paper and you're on TV.
Got to have that conflict.
So take Erick Erickson and a few of his most memorable quotes:
Weighing in on Justice David Souter's retirement from the Supreme Court: "The nation loses the only goat f**king child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court [....]"
Erickson applauded protesters who descended on Capitol Hill Nov. 5, 2009, to, as he characterized, "send Obama to a death panel." He later edited the post and changed the reference to Obamacare.
Erickson called White House Health Care Communications Director Linda Douglass "the Joseph Goebbels of the White House Health Care shop."
Responding to the Norwegian Nobel Committee's selection of President Barack Obama to receive the 2009 Peace Prize, Erickson tweeted: "I did not realize the Nobel Committee had affirmative action quotas it had to meet."
Reacting to a proposed Washington state regulation on dish soap aimed at easing water pollution: "At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?" [3/31/09]
CNN by hiring Erickson just got instant conflict in a box; all they have to do is put him on TV and let him speak. CNN doesn't care if anything he says is accurate. Doesn't care if he adds to the debate or helps educate their audience. None of that is important, because he creates ever more conflict for their narrative.
People here often wonder why folks like Tom Delay, Liz Cheney, Karl Rove, or Tom Tancredo get on TV almost daily. Or why the heck Joe Arpaio of all people would be interviewed on MSNBC yesterday about immigration? They're all great conflict creators.
Now I don't think anything I've said here is that new. But the desire for ever escalating conflict creates three other problems that are not talked about as much and directly affect our nation in ways I don't think most people grasp (or at least that is my thesis).
CREATING CONFLICT: REPORTING BOTH SIDES
This is something that Glenn Greenwald talks about more than anybody else. That when a journalist is putting together a story they feel the need to get both sides. He likes to note that with most topics there are in fact more than just two sides. Plus, to be "balanced" doesn't mean you report one side as fact if they are lying or factually inaccurate. But reporting both sides is a perfect way to create conflict.
An example is the question of is water boarding torture? The vast majority of stories, even to this very day, report both sides. One says it is torture. The other, nope just enhanced interrogation tactics. This is factually not accurate.
The problem with this is by reporting both sides, every story you'll read in USA Today, Washington Post, or the New York Times leaves the vast majority of the population thinking this is not a settled topic when it is.
IMHO this is why large percentages of our population think water boarding isn't torture. Climate change isn't occurring. Obama wasn't born in the United States. Obama raised taxes on the middle class. People who say all these things get on TV and get to write op-eds daily. It leaves the impression these are not settled questions, even when they are.
COMPLEX TOPICS DON'T CREATE CONFLICT
This reporting both sides to create conflict causes another interrelated problem. As I mentioned in the intro to create an interesting narrative you have to have ever escalating conflict. The debate on immigration is a perfect example.
I am pretty sure I come down on the pretty far left as it relates to immigration. I want illegal immigrants to be able to get a driver's license and insurance. Their children to attend school. I don't want them to fear calling the police if they need help. I want them to pay taxes. I don't want their employers to abuse them, because they know they fear deportation.
However it is a complex topic and I am sure somebody on the far right of me might have some valid reasons why my views are inaccurate or uninformed. So if I were to debate this person on MSNBC about the value of their children getting an education to our society as a whole, which might inform and educate, but there would not be a lot of conflict.
So instead the person on the far right has to explain that all illegal immigrants are criminals, they're talking jobs from Americans, going to infect our school kids with swine flu (all things that have been said).
But of course, you got to have more conflict. So they become rapist and pedophiles in the next interview. The crazy knows no boundaries in escalation, which brings us to the last problem this whole news as a narrative creates.
THE BEST CONFLICT IS CONFLICT ITSELF
This brings me full circle and back to Erick Erickson, because the best conflict is conflict itself. It is why the Daily Show's skit the other night comparing political debates in DC to professional wrestling was so spot on.
Tune into any 24/7 news channel and watch for a few hours and you'll quickly note much of the coverage is about what this person or that person said. The conflict of the conflict. Long forgotten is the context of what was said. The facts behind the issue. Instead we talk about:
I don’t want to make you sick, but I brought an abortion to show you today [...]
This stuff is ratings gold for the media outlets. And CNN knows that Erick Erickson will spin that gold 24/7. He'll say something outrageous. For the next day they'll rerun the clip and have folks comment on how appalled they are. Until a few days later he says something even more over-the-top and the process starts over again.
They don't have to do any reporting. Make any phone calls. Conduct any research. Just bring him into a studio. Mic him up and let him talk. They're creating their own conflict.
CONCLUSION
I don't think many here will find this hard to accept, cause we are news junkies. But it does bring up an important question, when facts are on your side how the heck can you get your point across when conflict is what the media outlets are looking for.
CNN would rather have Erick Erickson on talking about death panels and Obamacare is socialism then a report that highlights pretty much every major doctor, hospital, and nurses association backs HCR. I mean there is no conflict there.
There is a part of me that thinks many of our elected leaders must lock themselves in their bathrooms at night and just cry (or break things) thinking how hopeless it is trying to get their message across.
There is also apart of me that wish they'd realize this conflict news narrative is a reality and use it to their advantage (I think Alan Grayson gets it BTW), it alas I'm not so sure that would be a good idea.
Cause you have to have more and more conflict, and he'd be easy for us to become just as bat shit crazy as those we despise.