News Media: Reality TV on a Bender
The Facts on the Ground
-What passes for political debate these days is a series of catchy 10 second soundbites played continuously on the cable news networks.
-Context, nuance, and substance are all devalued in this format.
-Loudness is often mistaken for being right.
Overview
We at TPP appreciate it when a subject for an article jumps right out of the comment section and catches our attention. Travis912, a.c.mack, and bawlmerrep all made insightful observations in the Sotomayor piece that has led TPP to look at how public access to political process may be undermining the very thing that it is trying to preserve - the right of the citizenry to responsible representation in government. Many others also commented along this vein of thought, and it seems that there is a perception out there that the media is causing at least as much of a problem as it is supposed to be policing.
Many of the processes that used to occur in "smoke-filled rooms" are relatively public - generally with reporters in tow, along with interested citizens attending. This has always been the case - and allowed us a glimpse at the process that kept us informed of the workings of the government. In the evening, Walter Cronkite, or David Brinkley or some other reasonable figure would report the news - generally a summation of the necessary facts, and opinion was delineated and marked as 'commentary" - usually at the end of the broadcast. It wasn't particularly in depth, but it was what people needed to know to keep reasonably informed. If it was important, it was on the news.
In the aftermath of Watergate, and the counter-culture "revolution" of the baby-boomers, an extreme distrust of government institutions formed. Many will say that this was a healthy development - as too many people took for granted the truth that was presented on the evening news. For hard, in-depth news, the junkies of the day turned to the Washington Post or NY Times or Wall Street Journal. There were true journalistic heroes of the day then - going after the power structure and uncovering "corruption" at every level. Many think that this was a blowback from the assassinations of the 60's (Kennedy, King and Kennedy), and a look to idealism that was never really there. Others saw anger over an unpopular war and the more selfish reasons of self-preservation that the boomer generation has been painted with. In any case, through popular pressure and media scrutiny, two Presidential Administrations were taken down, and more public access to the workings of government was granted.
With the advent of cable TV, and the new glut of available TV stations, some were relegated to public service. Among these was a great idea with unintended later consequences - C-SPAN - a public access free station designed to cover the workings of Congress on a day to day basis. It's content was committee hearings and floor votes, and it had a viewership of near zero. The sad truth about watching representative government work is that, when it works well, it is about as exciting as watching paint dry. Every once in awhile there would be a blip of funny or drama, but the folks at home got their view of it from ABC, NBC, CBS and the new kid in town - Fox. Soon media-mogul Ted Turner conceived the concept of a 24-7 News channel, and CNN was born.
CNN had a noble mission - instantaneous delivery of the important breaking news - up to the minute updates, in depth analysis, interviews with the players - sort of the "uber MacNeill / Lehrer Newshour on steroids". CNN made it's mark during the 1984 Presidential campaign with pretty much wall to wall coverage of everything happened. CNN solidified it's place as THE place for breaking news during the First Gulf War, making household names out of Bernard Shaw and Arthur Kent. By the time of 9/11 CNN was the undisputed fountain of up to the minute news. But, the question begs, what does a 24-7 news channel do on a slow news day? How do you fill all of that time? And how do you hold an audience? News, even on a slow news day, needed to be both interesting and entertaining, and down the slippery slope we slide...
As CNN was growing into it's present form, the dead medium of AM radio was being revived by the phenomenon of Talk Radio. Usually this consisted of local programming and sports shows, but in the mid-80's a wily sportscaster made the decision to start defending the Reagan Administration and the conservative agenda. Surprisingly, the blunt speech and passionate appeal of the host started to catch on and the phenomena of Rush Limbaugh took off. To build and hold audience Rush often became more outrageous in his comments, and soon every radio market had a clone of his show broadcasting before or after him and building market share.
It was about this time that CNN, stuck in the morass of slow news in the post Gulf War I world slimed itself by pumping up stories that were not really up to the standards that Ted Turner aspired too. 24-7 coverage on the O.J Simpson "Trial of the Century" (really, of the century? what about the Rosenbergs? Sirhan Sirhan? maybe even that guy Ray who shot MLK?). The baby in the well? The rash of crack-induced car-jackings? No matter how remote or dull the actual story, it had to at least seem interesting and entertaining. CNN noticed The Limbaugh phenomenon as well, and upping the ante on the "talking head" shows making up Network Sunday morning, introduced an array of commentary-based, rather than news based, shows for entertainment purposes - all in an effort to keep that dial for changing to another station.
Into this mix we get political campaigns getting ever more expensive, and that C-SPAN channel. C-SPAN provided free public access footage to any of the news networks (at the time ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN) that wanted it. Some elected representatives, noting the interest in the Limbaugh type shows saw golden opportunity in those cameras placed in the House and Senate chambers. They took to addressing the chamber, when empty, with the cameras rolling - the hope being that the news might pick up the footage and get them some free publicity. But, once again, interesting and entertaining reared it's ugly head in what was primarily a dull endeavor - governing. To get on the news, what one said had to be new, or controversial, or better, both. Then Bill Clinton gave the gift of Monica Lewinsky. If the tipping point in politics realizing how to manipulate public opinion through TV could be marked, Miss Monica and her Oval Office Adventures had to be the crystallizing event. From there, nothing would ever be the same. Now there were "moments" - the Thomas hearings and the pubic hair, The Tower hearings with questions of booze and women, and of course the borking of Robert Bork, but nothing let loose the flooodgates like an almost popular President, caught with his pants down (literally).
Well, the Democrats took a whacking on that one, and turned the tables on the Republicans with Newt Gingrich, and everything has escalated since - shriller tone, more polarization, and less cooperation. The gridlock in DC has ground the entire nation to a halt. The members of one party will not even talk to the members of the other - lest they catch cooties or maybe pick up a loose idea. The mugging to the cameras has become a series of shout outs to the home district and the party base of either party, and the lunatics on the far side of each party have taken over leaving no room for the 90% of people in this country who can hold two ideas in their mind at the same time. Virtually every appearance by any member of any branch of government in front of any camera anywhere is a campaign commercial for that person or his / her boss. The nightmare of George Washington was that political parties would make the nation immobile - we have achieved that infamous marker.
Common Sense Dictates
TPP is all for transparency and open-government. An educated citizenry is the best defense against tyranny - to paraphrase President Washington. But just as medicine causes healing in one person, and if not carefully administered causes addiction in another, we, as citizens, should be aware of what is providing us with valid and useful information, as opposed to poisoning the well with misinformation and politicking. The country faces important decisions in healthcare, two ongoing wars, the economy, and any number of important issues. Too much time is being spent posturing in front of cameras, making it impossible for any actual governing to go on. To facilitate tending to the business of the country, TPP posits that ALL cameras should be removed from all deliberative areas of the government - including the House and Senate chambers. Media and the public should be granted full access, and the media should take up it's job of actually reporting events rather than commenting on a politician's filmclip. Mainstream media has suffered because it has gotten lazy and stupid, relying on gaffe reels and the combative behavior of politicians in constant campaign mode. TPP feels that if the sitting Senators and Congressmembers are not distracted by the urge to shout out to their constituency. or be caught on YouTube in a moment of considering an opposing thought, they will have the ability to become better public servants. At that point, the public will have a better idea as to whether those officials should continue to serve. Or so goes Common Sense.
RLB
Categories: Partisan Politics, media bias, Civic Duty
Tags: government gridlock media bias
Couldn't have said it better myself - rip the cameras out!
Reply to this
I don't know - they are all such preening little vanity hounds now, they might not show up for work at all. No one would be paying attention.
Reply to this
That would be bad how?
Reply to this
I don't know - we start banning cameras and we migh miss things like that beautiful gaffe of Obama calling the Cambridge Police Department stupid. I'm not sure we want to lose such revealing moments.
Reply to this
I don't think that the suggestion is to ban cameras from news conferences - that is a legitimate place to pick apart a politician, as well as fair game if the politician messes up. The idea as I read it is to have politicians free to not be a bunch of extremist hardasses when it comes to nominations or setting policy. If the TV cameras are there, and you feel the need to perform for your electoral base, not much is ever going to get done. We're witness to it now.
Reply to this
I think the cameras serve a purpose - they allow us to keep an eye on what is going on during the hearings. Do we really want to go back to the days of back room deals where people just sold out their beliefs? Keeping the pols on TV keeps some steel in their spine.
Reply to this
See, that was the idea, but like all good ideas, there's a dark side. When that was made policy, the country was pretty much united behind getting rid of corruption in government, but not so polarized left and right. Don't you remember the famous pic of Teddy Kennedy and Reagan walking and joking? The opposite sides could still talk to one another then, and more importantly LISTEN to each other. Now, with the loonies in charge of both parties, god forbid anyone even smiles in the direction of the opposition. Look at what happened to Arlen Specter (who really was a democrat all those years anyway)- he was crucified by the right wing. It will be the same if any of the left wing steps out of line. Yet, most of the people would still rather see something getting accomplished in the legislature. Taking the cameras out would stop the posturing, as no one would be watching. That could allow some real dialogue and working things out to start.
Reply to this
I really think it's important for the public eye to be on them while working. You can't trust them when they aren't being watched.
Reply to this
Carol - really, how much C-Span do you watch on an average day? Or does anyone? Most people have jobs and lives. Except for some interns in newsrooms around the country, no one actually watches this live - they catch it on the news later. Representative democracy only works if people are elected who can be trusted to act in the best interest of those being represented. That is decided by elections, and if you can't trust you guys, you need to work to get them unseated. You can't babysit bad behavior out of someone. All the cameras do is put pressure on them to appease the loudest voices in their own constituency so that they can get re-elected. That only serves to throw gasoline on the partisan fire - getting rid of the cameras makes sense at this point.
Reply to this
modoman has a good point - the live coverage of hearings really is not serving the public interest as it is right now. You can't really limit comments, and you can't regulate behavior. With people watching, Senators will want to look "above" the process, and more knowledgeable / smart / or up to date than whatever the subject of the hearing is. Face it, most politicians are a bit egotistical. You have to be to run for office. Feeding the ego with TV cameras just seems to run counter to the intention of the cameras. It used to be "shameful" for a politician to publicly pander. With no shame there is no self-regulation, and no value in what we see beyond seeing what sort of clueless boobs have been elected.
Reply to this
Are you kidding - ban the cameras??? I think that provides the best illustration as to why nothing gets done. It's seeing morons mouth off like this that gives me hope some new blood will get elected in their place...
Reply to this
Are you trying to tell me that the people of Alabama have had Jeff Sessions as a senator for 10 years, and SC has had Lindsey Graham for more than that, and they aren't aware that they are fools? No, I expect that their constituents vote for the basics, like everywhere else - they agree with the politician on the issues, and he brings home the pork. Apparently the only way either of these guys lose their job is if they come out as gay - since they seem to be insulated from regular affairs (like Sanford). The only way you will get them replaced is to have a bunch of New Yorkers or Bostonians move there and make the change.
Reply to this
Sounds like a replay of the civil war - the north invading the south to impose polite society. I'm not sure if you're point is that people should elect perfectly PC candidates who do not represent them and their views. I thought the purpose of the congress was to have constituent voices heard by the government. Now those views may be ugly or untidy, but people are entitled to send whoever they want to DC (within constitutional limits) - and if that person wishes to be reelected, he needs to reflect those views in his congressional work. That is how it works. Would you have silenced the first black or Latino representatives for representing their constituents? If we all need to get along in this country, every voice gets a hearing - black, Latino, whatever - and even redneck. They pay taxes too.
Reply to this
So rednecks can read now? Go figure... I think that when you get to the senate of the United States, a little bit better behavior is expected of you. Granted, you should represent your state and your constituents, but it should be done without becoming an embarrassment to the institution. Campaigning should be left to reelection committee and party events. It doesn't belong on the Senate floor.
Reply to this
Hate to break this to you guys, but a representative or senator putting his constituents FIRST was the exact design of the Constitution. The Constitution calls for a limited government with certain spelled out powers (read the Articles of the Constitution - it spells them out). Everything else is the domain of the states as spelled out in the 10th amendment. The only thing that Senators or Congressmen are supposed to cooperate on are matters of national concern. Other than that they are to lobby for their individual state and district interest. They are elected to REPRESENT the people who elected them, and their interests - not to lord over them and follow their own conscience or a higher calling. If the people are satisfied they get reelected, if not they throw the bums out. Neither legislative body was designed to be a clubhouse where everyone joins hands and sings kumbaya.
the executive points a big picture direction, the legislature hashes out compromises to satisfy everyone or nothing happens, and the judiciary makes sure that whatever comes out of congress adheres to constitutional principles. It's not supposed to be pretty, or efficient or powerful. It's supposed to be clunky and slow moving so that it can't be used to remove the rights of the people without enormous amounts of work. Madison and the others in the Constitutional Convention did that deliberately. If Jeff Sessions cares to sound like a dumbass, and he keeps getting elected, god bless him. If Lindsey Graham kisses up to his constituents and then votes against their wishes (as with Sotomayor), then he might not be around for another term. All they are is hired guns, fighting for those who sent them.
Reply to this
Wow - that's a cynical appraisal. I'd hate to think that self-interest was all that motivated government.
Reply to this
Well, it's put kind of blunt, but no one runs for congress to bring sweeping ideas to America - they run because they feel DC is giving them a bad deal. Ditto for the Senate - to protect the rights of the individual state against Federal encroachment. If you want the noble and just man seeking justice and freedom for all Americans - those are thepeople who run for President. At least the good ones. Most just want to rule the world...
Reply to this
Funny how this comes about on a regular basis - the realization that the Founders actually did want the LEAST possible government of the Federal level. Those who study the history of the revolution know this, as do the conservatives (though not all Republicans...). On the other hand, liberals are "shocked" to find this out, and often just ignore it, and the expectation of many people now is for the Feds to fix everything. That started with FDR. The founders are spinning in their graves.
Reply to this
Well, in that case, it doesn't matter about the TV cameras - let em roll. Even when it's not funny, it's educational for how petty we really are.
Reply to this
I would figure that with the raw footage of these guys on TV, it would give plenty of ammo to the opposition to take the seat. Even if a Senator is a bigoted, closed-minded cash hound, no one wants to be represented by an idiot. Some of the remarks at the Sotomayor hearing make them look just that way. I can hear the campaign commercials for 2012 already with Obama saying that "Police act stupidly..."
Reply to this
Efolkes - thought you were going to slam the Republicans for being morons, and you switched it up with a slap at Obama. Nice...
Reply to this
The Republicans are morons - they just don't own a monopoly on it. There's plenty of Dems in the club too. You have to call it out whenever it shows itself, or the politicians will just think it's ok.
Reply to this
Too true. I was all for banning the cameras when I first read this, but seeing our elected officials in their true colors makes me want to get better caliber people in the job. I might not get to vote for Jeff Sessions, but I do vote for my congressman and Senators, and they all need to improve. It's about bringing home the pork, but it's also about tackling the big issues in an intelligent and thoughtful manner - not just shouting slogans or kissing up to the extreme wings of the party.
Reply to this
I don't know how to weigh in on this one - we are expecting the actions of Jefferson from men and women who spend all of their time raising cash to run for re-election. There is nothing in today's system of elections that would allow for mature and reasoned thought from legislators, because it is not rewarded with keeping your office. The old school pols (the ones who knew about cooperation)are dying off, and the new ones know how to play the media for the best bang for the buck with the home audience. I think really the cameras should go - unless paid for by the reelection committees. That would be the only honest way to go.
Reply to this
I support getting rid of the cameras just because - IT ISN'T NEWS. Just because CNN is on 24-7 doesn't mean we have to put up with whatever garbage fills a slow news day. It's not new, it's not interesting and for the most part, it's not important. Even if it was, Cronkite could get you a pretty complete picture in about 5 minutes, and if you really want to find out about it, buy a paper. Or read about it on the internet. It's not the cameras per se that need to go - its CNN and all of it's 24 hour non-news brethren. All of them need to stop wasting our time.
Reply to this
Amen - save 24-7 coverage for when there really is an important news story - and Michael Jackson is not news!!
Reply to this
Had to throw one more shot at Michael, huh? Hey, for all the reasons stated I stick with my view that the cameras should stay - it's better to have an eye on them than to let them loose to their own devices.
Reply to this
The less attention that we give them, the more they might actually get to work. It is the showboating and always being in election mode that forces these "gentlemen" into idiocy. What we really need is the Texas model - part time legislature, a weak executive, a role narrowly defined by the Constitution, and adhere to it. It would be nice to have the Supreme Court do it's job and apply the actual Constitution to law. We could avoid much of the problems that way.
Reply to this