It's fashionable to say that the seeming ultimate failure of the Dean campaign can't be blamed on the media. And, in the context of the Democratic primary process, that's true. The media landscape is essentially the same for the candidates, and it's unsettling to see Trippi seem to blame the media for many failings that can be traced to him (see today's Note). They pushed hard for the front-runner status, but then were unprepared for the negative connotations of that. They have no one to blame for that but themselves. If they were surprised by the unceasing, breathless coverage of negative trivialities, they really haven't been paying attention.
But, in a larger context, what happened to Dean shouldn't have happened. And it shows a big problem standing in the way of a comeback of Progressive politics in this country.
It will hardly raise any eyebrows among Daily Kos readers to mention that the media sucks. Most will probably simply nod at my two main points, although I think it's important to look at them. But mainly, I am writing this to get it off my chest and to explain why I won't be hanging around here too much anymore (again, more for my own sake than over any misguided belief that my presence or lack thereof effects anyone else).
point 1 : The lack of context
To me, the greatest failure of our current media culture is the complete lack of context on any story. The press, through a combination of profit motive, faux-objectivity, and a decline of ethical standards of intellectual honesty, avoids putting any context on issues. So, the trivial gets equated with the important with no distinction. A vital issue like lying to Congress resulting in the death of thousands gets the same treatment as a simple assertion of executive privilege over some gubernatorial papers. The danger of this is obvious. Also, without proper context, the exception gets trotted out as if it were the rule, if it fits the story-line that's being pursued. For example, when Dean was getting the "he says one thing and later has to retract it, oh what a typical politician" treatment, dozens of calls came flooding in to VT reporters. And they all asked, "Can you name a time that Dean said something he later had to retract?" They didn't ask if that characterization of Dean was the impression of the reporters, or if this story line was true. They simply wanted anecdotes to fill their stories so they could get done by deadline.
Also, and this is often remarked upon, without context words mean nothing. It is only a matter of who can say their words the loudest for the longest. Bush can call himself a compassionate conservative over and over, and it works for him. Bush can claim to have delivered prescription drug coverage to seniors, and it works (at least in the media; seniors are the one group in this country that can often see through this bullshit). Clear Skies, Healthy Forests, "the science on global warming is still unclear." It goes on and on. The spinning of information has always been a part of the political process, but it's divorce from reality has reached horrifying proportions. It matters not at all if a phrase has any objective truth or meaning, the message discipline of the party speaking it is all that matters.
Now, I chose a couple Dean examples earlier because he is the most recent victim of this, but it will happen to any Democrat. It's not even a partisan issue. Right now, the right-wing has the bigger megaphone, but at another time it might be the Democrats. But the problem is that it is anathema to true democracy to have it this way at all. With no context, the flow and perceived meaning of information is easily manipulated by whomever has the access and power to get the stories disseminated. There is no information, only factoids. And democracy needs an adequate flow of information to survive, and it does not need truth and meaning in the hands of the powerful.
point 2 : Punditry is the death of political discourse, and now everyone thinks they're a pundit.
The economic reality of capitalism does not reward excellence, it rewards efficiency. And, with a completely free-market attitude toward the broadcast news industry, the large corporations that can both afford the high cost of entry into the business and deliver product that enough people will watch at the lowest possible price wins out. And, it's obviously one hell of a lot cheaper to fill an hour with a bunch of talking heads than it is to actually report the news. Now, would a really kick-ass investigative show delving deep into issues with a great presentation get a large audience? Yeah, probably. After all, Frontline does well on PBS, and 60 Minutes made their name on investigative stuff. But, would it do it efficiently? No way. So, what we are left with is a procession of pundits and prepackaged news like Kobe. Even so-called hard news is usually nothing more than punditry without the use of the first person pronoun. This also serves to provide phony context in stories by simply making it a part of a "race" and a political "contest." The entire spectrum of issues gets further divorced from reality.
This has also given us the spectacle of a major party in this country trying to decide who to put up as President by the use of mass punditry, surely a first in the annals of democracy. Suddenly, everyone is trying to decide who can appeal to those swing voters, and who matches up the best with the President. Now, I don't really want to get in a discussion of "electability" again, but I do just want to point out the sheer madness of a universal plebiscite on the issue.
So, what passes for news now is a cheaply packaged, mass-distributed amalgam of empty facts and anecdotes held together by a pablum of punditry (sort of an informational McNugget meal). Which brings me to why I feel the need to get this off my chest. Basically, a main reason I wanted to work for Howard Dean is because of all the things that don't get a proper hearing in today's media culture: the totality of his record, his truly honest character (something a faux-cynical population is too easily dissuaded of), and a willingness to look--without excessive ideological blinders--at issues as complex, but sometimes solvable problems. I really started to feel a part of his campaign when I realized that he saw the same problem in today's media that I did. But, in the end, it was surely too much to think that a campaign based on those things would succeed. Dean realized that and, too late, tried to dive into the politics of personal revelation and pop culture. He, and especially his staff, should have known that all along, but they didn't. That's their fault.
But, I can't let this situation pass by without at least trying to do something about it. I am in a minority in this country in that I am actually in a position to do something about it, at least in a small way. And I'm probably in a somewhat smaller minority in that I realize it. So, I'm taking it upon myself to work as hard as I can to be the change I seek, so to speak. I'd feel too much of a blog-whore going into details . . . besides it's not even available in its first, very unimpressive infant stage. But, for now, I only want to plead to everyone that without real media reform, this country's democracy is in trouble. Do whatever you can to help it along.
Besides, in the end, John Kerry doesn't really need my help because he's playing by the old rules, and I'm not in a swing state. I hope like hell he (or whoever is the nominee) succeeds.