What's been eating at me this week

[womzilla]

About a year ago, I was listening to an NPR week in review show. There were three guests discussing issues--one of them a Washington beltway political reporter, one a writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and one a reporter for one of the international newspapers. The first question was, at it is every week, "What was the most important event this week?"

Because the mid-term Congressional elections were in full swing, the political reporter and the propagandist both said that the most important event was some minor gaffe by some political figure--I want to say that it was John Kerry's botched joke about how if you don't study, you "get [us] stuck in Iraq", but I'm not sure that the timing is right. Both of them agreed that this gaffe was catastrophic and would have disastrous results for the Democrats and would guarantee that the Republicans held the Congress.

The third person said, "The government of Pakistan has just signed a truce with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, giving them safe haven in the western mountains of the country."

Weirdly, the other two people and the show's host didn't suddenly say, "Oh, you're right, that's much more important than some stupid joke." No, they went back to discussing John Kerry's big foot-in-mouth moment (or whatever it was).

Jameson Foser is still right: The biggest problem facing America isn't Iraq; it isn't the continuing crisis in New Orleans; it isn't increasing terrorism, or global warming, or health care or crumbling infrastructure. The biggest problem facing America is the news media. As long as the news media are completely and fundamentally broken, there cannot be any progress on any real issue, because no real issue can get any discussion. (I realized a couple of weeks ago that one of the reasons I'm supporting Edwards over Obama and Clinton is that he seems to be the only candidate on the Left who is actually interested in attacking this problem.)

The recent back-and-forth about what we do about Al Qaeda as the system flashes red for a second summer, and what we do about Pakistan, reminded me of this.

Comments

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

He's attacking the press. He has to--they hate him, and if he lets them define his narrative, he's out of the race. Elizabeth has been up in the press's face repeatedly, attacking not just Ann Coulter but the entire Right Wing Noise Machine dynamic. And Edwards's campaign ad for the YouTube debate--the "do you want to talk about hair or do you want to talk about what's important?" ad--is a direct assault on the press.

If Edwards tried to implement a pool approach, he would guarantee that he would have no press coverage at all. The press would take this as an excuse to stop covering him.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Running against the press.

Oh. That always works so well.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

Well, it worked for Reagan, twice; not quite as well for Bush Sr.; and for the Gingrich Revolution.

One of the things that made the Gingrich Revolution possible was the rise of talk radio, allowing people to bypass the mainstream news media and tap into a new channel of information (much of it poisoned, but it's still information) that would feed their outrage. The blogosphere does that now for progressives--though, I think, with somewhat less poison.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

No. Reagan did not run against the press. He ran against Washington.

The occasional progressive pointing out that the emperor had no clothes apart, Reagan had great press. Compare the general thrust of his election coverage against Carter's or Mondale's, and it's very obvious they were enraptured with him. Same was true with Bush Jr. during his elections, as Alterman points out.

And as you yourself observe, Gingrich didn't need to run against the press. He built his own press. The blogosphere is a weak, pathetic thing compared to Gingrich's press, as Howard Dean discovered last time around. If the blogosphere had its way, Ron Paul would be the Republican nominee. That shows how divorced, not just from reality, but from power, the blogosphere is.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

A reasonable point about Reagan. Reagan really did ride stupid white guy resentment, and the so-called liberal media was one of the biggest targets of that. The fact that press loved Reagan--because they love politicians who tell them simple stories--doesn't change the fact that he was using them as one of his whipping boys.

The blogosphere has grown a great deal--in venues, in readership, in skill, and in organization--in the four years since Dean's campaign. The blogosphere is making the transition from "news commentary" to "news coverage". Several of the largest scandals before Congress over the last six months emerged from blog/online magazine coverage, notably the entire US Attorneys scandal. It certainly is possible to overstate its power--though it's worth noting that the left-wing blogosphere is much more influential in the left wing than the right-wing blogosphere is in the right wing.

Right wing talk radio on the other hand is dying fast--the audience is down 70% in the last two years, because people who owned terrestrial radios to listen to Howard Stern and then tuned in to Savage Michael and the Moron Brigade are now listening to satellite radio instead.