I like the media, I really do. I just have problems with them -- and not because of a perceived right-wing bias or because Ace was voted off Real World"Road Rules "Inferno." No, my problems stem from the media's sensationalism and detrimental sociopolitical influence. Before I continue, let's flash back to last fall.
Three months ago, I went to see Dartmouth alum and former secretary of labor, Robert Reich '68, discuss why he endorsed John Kerry for President (which, at the time seemed like a very questionable thing to do). Reich spoke eloquently about Kerry's qualifications and his electability (I could barely see the four foot nine inch tall Reich over the podium -- forcing me to intensely concentrate on his voice). In due course, a Dartmouth student asked the much-anticipated question: why Reich backed Kerry instead of Howard Dean. Reich's response was esoterically refreshing: instead of comparing the credentials of the two candidates, Reich began to illustrate the policy differences between them. Reich's belief that America should run a small debt during an economic recession (Kerry's stance) as opposed to futily attempting to balance the budget (Dean's stance) was one of the persuading factors in his decision to support the stoic Kerry.
Now flash back to two weeks ago: It's the last major debate before the New Hampshire primary. The sponsor of the debate (in what has become their typical, condescending style of subsidizing political events that they later ideologically bash) is Fox News, led by my main man Brit Hume. During the course of the debate, Howard Dean is asked repeatedly about his infamous Iowa concession speech, his Diane Sawyer interview, his use of his wife as a campaign tool, and, of course, his temperament. Meanwhile, John Edwards is asked, on three separate occasions, to specify his stance on gay marriage, while Joe Lieberman and Wesley Clark must field questions about their poll statuses and their decisions to skip the Iowa caucuses. Policy banter, such as debating the economic benefits of balancing the budget, might have been the theme of the night, but what the viewing public got was textbook media sensationalism -- an obsession with portraying politics as a game (which in many regards it is) rather than as an institution of differing ideologies.
Now let's review the past week. The right breast of Janet Jackson has been mother's milk for the media -- in the process almost overshadowing the most egregious and unacceptable intelligence failure our government has ever had to acknowledge. Meanwhile, while mere cursory attention was paid to the estimated half a trillion dollars in debt that the Bush administration is projected to accumulate over the upcoming fiscal year, media networks dispatched their chief legal and economic consultants in droves to cover the exploits of Martha Stewart's stock tip violations. Sure, surveys suggest that the American public is compellingly interested in knowing whether or not Stewart will have to domesticate a six-foot by six-foot prison cell, but I'm sure there's also a potential audience out there who would like to know why their fiscal future has been mortgaged for weighted tax cuts.
Personally, I feel a bit disgraced over the inadequate and socially-damaging entity that has become the American media. Just look at how CBS dealt with the MoveOn.org commercial -- at first letting the Democratic organization purchase the commercial slot then telling MoveOn that their ad was too politicized to air. So there it is, instead of airing something politically provocative, CBS chose to run a commercial in which a horse farts a lit candle into a women's face (a special tip of the hat to those ad wizards at Budweiser).
But who am I to complain when someone like Howard Dean stays relatively silent? Dean, who every Democrat will acknowledge is a refreshing voice in this purgatory known as American government, will forever be symbolized as the Charlie Brown of electoral politics -- so close to winning, only to have the media pull the ball out from under him. As New York Times columnist William Safire summarized: "I feel for him [Dean] in a way. . . all those pretty-face media types kissing your ring when you're flying high, and then the minute you stumble, they smell blood and turn on you like a wolf pack." You see, the real victims of this whole mess are the Howard Deans of the world, the uninhibited orators and controversial thinkers who attempt to redefine our social ethos. So what else is there to do but blame the messenger?
