I spend a lot of time on the internet these days, perusing the various articles regarding the election in blogs, newspapers, and magazines. They discuss polls, they weigh statements, they play neutrality or sometimes forthright partisanship. They provide real information, for those who can parse it, that educates and enlightens us about not only the election, but the entire political process, as the lens on our government becomes increasingly large during presidential election years.
But there is another side to all of this. They also twist dialogue, play poll games, host editorial interviews in the guise of trusted research, ask leading questions, and manipulate truth in small but meaningful ways. And they are not consistent, if you're preoccupied enough to only look at it from the political perspective. They will preach the gospel of the media-proclaimed "new Democratic messiah", and then latch onto the smallest negative comment by his opponent, effectively neutering the candidate it was extolling moments ago.
But this would only matter if the media did these things with a partisan bent. In truth, the very purpose of the media in our age is not to report on fact, but to fabricate from various sources a legitimate sounding dialogue designed to sell their advertising sections. In this way, they are more bipartisan than any public official could ever hope to be. They are interested exclusively in creating something that the most people in the most market segments want to buy. The nation of Bachelor watchers and Paris Hilton gawkers has proven that educated truth is not what we are buying in quantity. We want friction and tension and a touch of schadenfreude, especially when it enforces a preconceived notion, rather than challenging our staid beliefs.
So it only stands to reason that, for the vast digital and paper-based media at large, the only thing of interest in this 2008 election year is portraying, through any manipulation possible, the facade of a neck-in-neck election race. Of course, calling out 2008 is disingenuous, because they have not been idle during previous election years. 2004 was certainly fraught with media intervention. There was truth to be had, lying about unclaimed, but the shinier morsels of superficial glitter held more commercial promise for our enterprising media, so truth was a scarcity in that year as well.
But after 8 years of disasterous Bush policy, the momentum of change is clear in public opinion. While the voice of Obama dissenters is strong in the media channels, the feeling on the ground seems to break the opposite direction. Even in my lovely state of Texas, a perennial Republican stronghold, the desire to step away from the course we've stayed for 8 years is strong. Aside from the core of Democrats supporting Obama, there is also a feeling of "Anyone but (a nearly identical continuation of) Bush" driving independents and moderate/fiscal conservatives away from the arms of McCain.
The media won't report it this way, of course. And this is the crux of my issue. At some point, we have witnessed media transform itself from a source of information ABOUT an election cycle to an influential member of the election campaigns. By varying their focus, by bolstering the appearance of strengths in the weak, and going into granular detail of weakness in the strong, they are not simply reporting, but purposefully swaying the minds of those who watch in order to perpetuate their need for a "balanced" election. Poll questions are modified or discarded when gaps are too large, and coverage is distorted when one power pulls too far ahead. To continue to SELL the election, the media in it's present state must keep dramatic tension inherent, and you can't do that with one party reduced to a minority player.
I keep my eyes open and my ears to the ground. After eight years of one of the most abominable presidencies in the history of our nation, it seems impossible that the balance of weight between an often befuddled insider Bush ally and a charismatic groundbreaking voice of change would even be measured on the same scale, but they will be. Right up to election day. And the votes will be close, because the media will use every weapon in their arsenal to ensure their eyeballs, even if that means influencing the hearts and minds of Americans in order to tip the scales back. Even if it means pulling out casual mentions of the Muslim comments, or full blown recaps of all the negatives Obama has been forced to endure in his quest for the White House (a negative piece disguised as a heroic biopic).
In the future, I wonder what we can do to prevent this? Can anything be done? Is there an intersection between free speech and political influence? And if nothing can be done about media, what can WE do to ensure that the right information is getting to the eyes and ears of the people who normally rely on our current media?