If I were a betting man, I'd have put next month's rent on CNN being the medium for the latest in hypocritical and aggressively ironic calls for civility and integrity in journalism.
I would have done this because CNN doesn't really follow the "investigative journalism" school of thought, instead focusing on the "Fuck it, give two opposing opinions on the topic and hit the bar" school of thought.
I also have poor impulse control and bad fiscal management skills, but that's a diary for another time.
From the link above my digression, right at the damn beginning, here are the words of John P. Avlon, CNN contributor and senior political columnist for The Daily Beast:
We don't listen to each other anymore.
It's not just a complaint in relationships -- it's a fair characterization of the state of our national political debate. The bond between fellow American citizens is being weakened by screaming and suspicion.
This is a remarkably astute observation for someone in the Traditional Media, but it's also slightly undercut by a little portion of the author's bio, not two inches above what I quoted:
Editor's note: John P. Avlon is a CNN contributor and a senior political columnist for The Daily Beast. He is the author of the new book, "Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America."
.....
Really, Avlon? "The bond between fellow American citizens is being weakened by screaming and suspicion, so buy my book: Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America."?
But that's just a little thing that made me chuckle. Nothing to get too worked up over.
The real bullshit is the rest of the article, which laments the fact that political discourse has degenerated into demonizing opponents and using fear based rhetoric while firmly underplaying the role that the media plays in this.
For journalists, a speech is not news unless there is a scandal. Attack ads, process stories and gotcha politics too often trump substance and analysis. As the president said, "The media tends to play up every hint of conflict, because it makes for a sexier story, which means anyone interested in getting coverage feels compelled to make their arguments as outrageous and as incendiary as possible."
This is true. There is an editorial undertow in media that rewards the most extreme ideological voices. This is polarizing for profit under the banner of political principle.
It's always nice to see someone who is a part of the Traditional Media saying that the Traditional Media sucks. Sort of makes this all worthwhile, even though this has been so obvious to us for so many reasons that we can only describe it using the following mathematical formula:
Duh x Infinity = No shit
I can't speak specifically about Avlon's past columns and whether or not he has consistently spoken these views because I didn't look, but he is not the main source of my ire. Calls for civility and real journalism like the ones he wrote are common in the Traditional Media these days, from multiple and sometimes hilariously inept sources. The problem is, I don't recall the Traditional Media being chock full of these sorts of opinions when a Republican controlled government took polarizing to insane levels. I don't remember there being a fetish with bipartisanship when Republicans had all the cards. And I certainly haven't seen any Traditional Media outlets taking steps to correct their role in perpetuating scandal-driven "news" at the expense of facts and stuff.
Arguments from the Traditional Media about the Traditional media are inherently suspect, but things like this go beyond that. It's more like slamming top speed into a brick wall built with oblivious stupidity and probably some bricks. They lament the problems with their field while remaining unaware of how they are creating those problems.
If Joe Sixpack believes that gay flag-burning feminist Muslim communists are taking over the country, and CNN's lead story on the subject is "Some say that gay flag-burning feminist Muslim communists are taking over the country, but some disagree", then why the fuck would he think he might be wrong?
Instead of doing a bit of research and finding the truth, they present two opposing sides to every story and then call it a day (as long as it's not a hyper partisan media source, obviously). Even worse, Traditional Media treats any blog or site that actually looks for facts and disputes their reporting as "fringe", also commonly known as "far left."
But I do agree with Avlon. He's right when he's asking for civility, asking us to move beyond the petty bickering, the screaming, the baseless accusations.
I go into greater detail about those very things in my upcoming book: Republicans: How a rise in conservatism is inextricably linked to a growth in puppy cancer.