Media’s Obsession with Trivia

I want to get caught up in it all, I want to believe, but I know on some level that it is all a fiction. Barack Obama is cautious about committing himself to issues. He’s long on charisma, and he’s roping in a public that is starved for a real leader and that is accustomed to politics stripped of issues. The American media culture is perhaps the shallowest and most submissive to power that has ever existed since Marconi. We have so little to brag about.

But I find myself drawn in to the Obama cult because he is giving the Clinton’s a good how-to, keeping Hillary out of power and consigning Bill to the trash heap of ex-presidents. There’s some validation in that. (Side note: Ralph Nader claims that Obama knows what is up, understands the issues in depth, but is engaging in “protective imitation”, I assume to minimize negative news coverage.)

Truth is a little more sobering. Most political power in this country exists outside the federal electoral system. Just one example of a powerful and unregulated force in American politics: the major news outlets. They have more say over who our next president will be than any other single body in this country. They are uniformly owned by large corporations, and while their primary purpose is to create investment return for stockholders, they also decide what is an issue, what is not. They can ignore anyone they please, and do so, openly and brazenly. They can talk about fluff and minutia and put us to sleep. They can talk horse race 24-7, and ignore substantive issues. And they do.

The media consists of a few pretty faces on TV, along with beat reporters for major newspapers, but there is far more to it than that. What we don’t see are the editors and publishers of those newspapers, and the board rooms of the corporations that own NBC and CBS, etc. Fox may be blatantly biased, but there is a conservative tilt to other mainstream outlets too. It’s very difficult to get a true progressive on the air, whereas conservatives highlight every major news show and the editorial pages of most newspapers.

The complaint now among Democrats is that John McCain is getting a free ride, while Obama and Clinton are being closely scrutinized. In true American fashion, few people could tell us where any of these candidates stand on actual issues. Instead, the news media has chosen to focus on peripheral issues, like Obama’s pastor and Hillary’s 3 AM ad and he-said she-said sound bytes. They are also excellent accountants, working hard to count them delegates. Notice how none of this affects who will deliver health care or get us out of Iraq.

So we get weird election results – Reagan elected in 1980 and 1984, even as the electorate opposed his legislative agenda. Same with Bush – his war, his opposition to social programs is wildly at odds with public opinion, yet he apparently still drew slightly less than 50% of the vote in 2004. Issues that are important to most voters are not important to the elite, therefore we don’t get a serious discussion.

This may be a natural outcome of a media that has to worry about making money for shareholders, and therefore worries about entertaining viewers more than informing them. It could also be deliberate – a way to shield a candidate who has very unpopular stances – John McCain. It’s Reagan all over again – he’s polling in the high forties, yet the issues that he has taken a stand on are directly at odds with public sentiment. People like him because he is a “maverick”, a war hero, a nice guy – none of that is true, but nothing to the contrary will ever see light of day in major media outlets.

Given the ownership of the media by conservatives, I assume that John McCain will continue to get a free ride, while pesky and unimportant side issues will dominate coverage of the campaign. And like in 2000 and 2004, Americans will vote with little knowledge of actual candidate stances on issues after having been assaulted with barrages of 15 and 30 second propaganda spots.

The only question that I ask is this: Is it us, or is it them, that causes this? I say that when elite consensus is at odds with public opinion, that our media deliberately fall back on fluff and trivia in the place of real news coverage. I say it’s them.