No sooner has Hillary announced than we are inundated with the idiocy of what passes for political analysis in the news media. They have to write something. They have to make it seem like they offer true insight. But what they're really doing is dumbed-down theater criticism, commenting on the symbolism and dramatics of the campaign rather than the issues. But it's important to hold these reporters accountable for spouting these banalities.
This is the headline on theLA Times piece:
Analysis Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign: It's not about me, it's about you
Was there ever a campaign that didn't have this message?
Also, note that what this supposed analysis really does is repeat Clinton's campaign message, just putting it in different words. This is exactly what the campaign spinmeisters count on. They release a vacuous ad or marketing video and the pundits race to explain what the candidate is really saying. So now the candidate's message gets told twice, though the second time it gets passed off as insight and deep thinking.
Note: this headline was updated and now reads differently. I guess they realized how lame it was.
The New Yorker actually becomes self-parodying in the way it dissects Hillary's announcement video:
If these people have one thing in common, it is their tendency to suddenly offer up a gesture of symbolic cheer—an abrupt laugh, a thumbs-up, a half-jig, spirit fingers, girl-power bicep flexing, a just-kidding-guys elbow-to-the-ribs.
“I’m getting ready to do something, too—I’m running for President,” Hillary says, more than a minute and a half into the video, which is two minutes and eighteen seconds long. By that point, a small boy has already explained that he is getting ready to be in a play, in which he will play a fish and wear a fish costume, and has, indeed, begun to sing a fish song.
It's amazing how much energy goes into figuring out the message of Clinton's video. It's clear it was watched over and over again, each frame parsed for its hidden meaning. I doubt as much thought went into the video as is going into interpreting it. And then after all this, the author writes:
The campaign-announcement video is, granted, a tough genre, and not one that is going to decide anything,
So why did she bother in the first place? It's like writing in the middle of an article, "you're wasting your time reading this."
In the NY Times, the journalist looks deeply into Hillary's eyes:
Her eyes are also a real asset, and that comes across in video. As one communications specialist put it to me, humans are wired to tune into people’s eyes, to look for trust and sincerity — or the opposite. She has strong and clear eyes, and they work in her favor.
This is actually pillowtalk--"you have such beautiful eyes." (And would the reporter have made so much of her eyes if this were a man?)
I know this is all predictable, but it's still depressing.