The Media Follies

It used to be that some had aspirations that a 24-7 media would lead to a general uplift in the culture, arts, and political understandings of the people. Such a promise seemed to fulfill Thomas Jefferson’s admonition that a people could not be both ignorant and free.  But what is happening is disappointing.  First, the major non-cable networks have moved their resources out of nightly news.  If one examines, for example, CBS Evening News with Katie Couric one will see a 30-minute show that gives us 22 minutes of news, but a good part is soft news which is entertainment not enlightenment.  Then CBS and the other two networks wonder why the number of people watching their news has significantly dropped over the years.

More and more resources though are being put into celebrity news which covers the love lives and scandals of people in entertainment.  For three solid weeks, CNN (once supposedly the cable news network of the nation and the world) covered the life and times of Paris Hilton.  Now we have long and serious discussions about Britney Spears.  And then across the dark skies, when one thought things could not get much worse streaks O.J. Simpson!  Unfortunately Johnny Cochrane is gone, but the other principals in that absurd trial and morality play are still alive and are now commentators -- paid of course.  And his confession or hypothetical confession is number 2 on the New York Times best seller list.  Incredible…only in contemporary America.

Even reasonable public relations specialists cannot keep up with their clients who have become so very strange.  Brittany forced her manager out after she appeared on MTV with love handles around her waist.  It was apparently his fault that she laid into ice cream and burritos at night.  But what of our politicians?  We are seeing the same debasing and silly approach, for we treat our leaders as celebrities who hang with other celebrates in other fields and who raise money for the rich, the beautiful, and the highly visible.

Recently, Fox News and even the once respectable New York Times focused a series of treatments on Hillary Clinton’s laugh -- not her medical plan, but her laugh.  She apparently has a loud cackle.  What does that really mean; does it signify her arrogance or is it a timed reaction to give her more of a chance to respond to bland questions?

Maybe it is that she just laughs a lot; she understands the absurdity of life in a profession where absurdity is the norm.  Does that impact on her ability to be commander in chief?  Lincoln had a peculiar laugh and loved to tell cornball stories, often to the annoyance of his contemporaries.  Perhaps his behavior was just a release mechanism from the terrible tensions of the Civil War.

The other candidates have come under inappropriate scrutiny.  Why did John McCain convert from the Episcioptianism of his youth to Baptist? Can it be to help him in South Carolina?  Will the American people really accept Romney’s Mormonism, as if Americans really know what Mormonism is.  Let us all examine the alleged trophy wives (young pretty women) who decided to marry Dennis Kucinich, Christopher Dodd, and Fred Thompson.  Instead of scrutinizing John Edwards’s positions, we are examining his wife’s views on peripheral issues.  And Obama’s wife tells us he stinks physically in the morning.

Is the media overly concerned with the trivia and personal nonsense that we are now following? This obviously dumbing down of citizens is one of the reasons politicians do not take us seriously.  Instead of examining the differences on the Iraq war as expressed by the candidates in the debates so far, we are talking about who won the debates by getting in sarcasm and funny remarks in their answers.  We actually give public time to people like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Huckabee.  All that is missing is Al Sharpton.  Is anybody seriously considering these guys for our highest office especially in time of grave peril?

Next to those celebrity politicians are celebrity journalists -- talking heads who are generally wrong in their predictions or who are constantly talking over each other so the viewers cannot figure out what they are saying anyhow.  When I noted the decline of serious political discourse recently, I was told -- do you expect them to talk in a personal gathering about public policy?  Of course not, I am more concerned if Bill Clinton still wears boxer shorts.

Recently the Hall Institute of Public Policy and the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University had a public conference on what issues women are concerned about and what is salient for the electing in 2008.  Their responses were clear, eloquent and policy oriented.  Not a single speaker said, I really want a candidate who is eye-candy, or I really want a candidate who makes me feel warm and fuzzy. They wanted one to end the war, push for universal medical coverage, and promote more job security.

Michael P. Riccards is Executive Director of the Hall Institute of Public Policy – New Jersey.