Thursday, October 11, 2012

Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi wonders if the media hype has become more important than the candidates? Good question.

Courtesy of Rolling Stone:

What we Americans go through to pick a president is not only crazy and unnecessary but genuinely abusive. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in a craven, cynical effort to stir up hatred and anger on both sides. A decision that in reality takes one or two days of careful research to make is somehow stretched out into a process that involves two years of relentless, suffocating mind-warfare, an onslaught of toxic media messaging directed at liberals, conservatives and everyone in between that by Election Day makes every dinner conversation dangerous and literally divides families. 

Politicians are much to blame for this, but we in the media have to take responsibility for the damage we do to the American psyche in the name of election coverage. At this very moment, there are people all over the country who are stocking up on canned goods and ammo for the apocalypse they believe will come if Obama is re-elected. For the broadcast business to be successful, viewers need to be not merely interested in our political melodramas, they have to be in an absolute state about them – emotionally invested in the outcome and frightened not to watch what happens next. And any person who's been subjected to 720 consecutive days of propaganda is not likely to take the news well if he gets the wrong result, whether it's a victory for Obama or for Romney. By that point, the networks have spent two years finding new ways each day to convince him that the world is going to disintegrate into some commie or Hitlerian version of Mad Max, to keep him coming back and watching ads. 

The campaign should start and finish in six weeks, and there should be free TV access to both candidates. And it should be illegal to publish poll numbers. This isn't as crazy as it sounds – they actually had such a law in Russia while I lived there, and people were much happier. (Well, they were still miserable, because they were Russian, but at least they weren't stressing about poll numbers.) Think about it: Banning poll numbers would force the media to actually cover the issues. As it stands now, the horse race is the entire story – I can think of a couple of cable networks that would have to go completely dark tomorrow, as in Dan-Rather-Dead-Fucking-Air dark, if they had to come up with even 10 seconds of news content that wasn't centered on who was winning. That's the dirtiest secret we in the media have kept from you over the years: Most of us suck so badly at our jobs, and are so uninterested in delving into any polysyllabic subject, that we would literally have to put down our shovels and go home if we didn't have poll numbers we can use to terrify our audiences. Can you imagine if your favorite news network had to do stories like, "What is the Overseas Private Investment Corporation up to, and what do each of the candidates think about it?" That would be like asking Nineties-era baseball players to take the field without popping greenies – what, you mean play the game sober? Half the on-air talent would have to resign, or do ad work hawking reverse mortgages.

Very well said.

Of course I would be almost as happy if they simply took Fox News off the air and we could all return to the time when we simply covered the elections for a few minutes a night at the end of the daily news broadcast about a variety of OTHER important subjects that in the end are far more important to our day to day lives.

To read more of this rather brilliant rant about the ridiculousness of our political state these days simply click the link at the top. It is not long, and it is well worth your time in my humble opinion.

19 comments:

  1. Anonymous2:11 AM

    The more the horse race, the more ad buys for tv stations. It's a closed system.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous2:27 AM

    This issue is much bigger than just the election. It is the age we live in.....24hr news available either on television or the internet.

    How does one report "new" news 24/7 and attract viewership? One cannot. Therefore, media now creates news. This is the core of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sally in MI6:11 AM

      You are 100% correct. Bravo!

      Delete
  3. Leland3:21 AM

    It is my understanding that England limits the campaigning time to a few weeks each election. There will be those who will say, "Sure. They're so tiny you can do it all in that time." But it is absolutely ridiculous that we will spend well over a billion dollars (now that we have Citizens United) on elections. Free TV time, as he said, would go a long way to reducing that and it would end up cheaper. We live in an age of near-instant communication. With that kind of technology, who needs two years of lying? Make it law that the media cannot show "clips" of speeches! Or at the very least require the entire speech (or whatever) from the candidates be shown, WITHOUT COMMENTARY, at reasonable times.

    Further, I believe that in France it is not legal for any campaigning to be done for the last few days before the election itself - to give the populace a chance to THINK. Or at least to calm down!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:53 AM

      The Canadian election for a Prime Minister is 8 weeks. They cannot campaign on the day of the election

      They can't say that the 'area size' of Canada is small!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6:11 AM

      What is wrong with you people? You want us to be like Europe? And that socialist Canada? Seriously, this whackadoodle Congress can't even agree on jobs for our troops. However would they explain to the Kochs and Adelson that they can't take their money? I LOVE the idea...how do we sell it tp the creeps on Cap Hill?

      Delete
  4. Anonymous4:09 AM

    matt hits it out of the park. again. every campaign season "the media" obsesses over the "horse race" then at the end of each season they do a mea culpa about how the over focussed on the race and that next time they will give more attention to issues of substance.

    which of course they never do and then they blithely return to their old horse race habits the next time around.

    just what good are these people anyhow?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous4:10 AM

    I've been ragging on a few for the past few days on Twitter. And I'm not letting up!

    The unempoyment number has appeared to have slid through with no notice as they can't get past the debate. We should start referring to the unemployment number of 7.8% as Employed 92.2% -- change it to the glass more than half full. Can you say MSNBC has talked the number -- not a freaking change. They've all been like crickets other than the jerk from GE twitter rant.

    For as much that Chris Matthews gained a few weeks ago, he's lost it plus more. He's been one like yelling fire. In fact, yesterday with Dee Dee Myers on, at the end of the segment she said that after the debate tonight we should just take a deep breath and basiscally calm down. Matthews, that wasted freaking co..su..er (letters missing you can fill in!!) - responded back that he doesn't have to, he has a different job. Really -- he's news. Is it his job to call fire in a building. Man I've after that dick's ass after his screaming shit after Pres debate. He really has not stopped yet.

    Matthews & Andrea Mitchell are referred to as the experts. WTF Mitchell's an old hag that couldn't get her head out of a wet paper bag. She's a 'say anything & get away with it zone' as she's may as be paralyzed watching her try to figure what to say next. She has Sununu on once a week. WTF? Matthews is back to his screech & they mentioned someone else that talks over his guests & interrupts -- Matthews said I don't do that -- do I??? You idiot that he has to ask.

    I want to even start on Rachel to pound in Matthews & Mitchell are not experts.

    I also have to say - for one who's appeared what we thought as supportive of Obama - What the fuck is up with Andrew Sullivan? Did his partner leave him and he's crying for attention? He too is screaming like a total freakin' loon and that only he is now the qualified about Obama -- You can read that theme in his posts as he continued calling fire yesterday. STFU.

    Ed Schultz - fist to the mouth but he chilled within about 36 hours. Rev Al was the only one that displayed any form of immediate pushback.

    It's sad -- they have the advantage of a TV show to speak to people or a higher profile blog post where they can 'scream fire' but don't weigh the responsibility that comes with it.

    Many have been trying to push the message while these morons push the 'fire', we at ground level are organizing & voting and telling them to STFU - they aren't helping us.

    Mad -- Beyond.....You're damm right I am.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6:45 AM

      Andrew moved to NYC and is butt hurt it isn't what he thought it would be. No sleep will get you hysteria every time.

      Delete
  6. Anonymous5:31 AM

    I would have to say that the toxic effluent flows at a much greater rate and volume from conservatives towards liberals than in the other direction. I don't count the vituperation found in blog posts & comments from either side: the MSM is almost entirely to blame, Fox news particularly. Taibbi is painting both sides as equally repellent - I disagree wholeheartedly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Taibbi's only error here is in estimating the craziness spanned only two years. It's been four in my estimation, with the true aggravation starting late in 2000 with the Supreme Court blundered in to the political arena.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous6:07 AM

    He makes his usual good sense (I think his article on Romney and Bain is the best out there covering the real Romney) but he dared to mention the R word, and if any consevatve read the article, he would not his head UNTIL 'our greatest geopolitical foe' was mentioned. Then the article lines the birdcage. Sad but true.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous6:37 AM

    There are several media thingies that irk me. One is when pundits say that the ugly rhetoric comes from BOTH campaigns. As an outside observer, and as one who catches the political views from the 3 major U.S. news networks, I distinctly see a major effort from the conservative sites to trash the POTUS and Democrats on every side, with absolutely no facts. It doesn't go both ways. I see the left-leaning or moderate networks constantly refuting the lies that keep coming from the right, and all their energies are in trying to refute those lies. In trying to do so, they are accused of being just as aggressive and mean-spirited as the Republicans.

    So when I hear any pundit from Fox or MSNBC say that the fight comes from both sides of the aisle, it grinds my loins. Another point that I find the media does that is baffling to me, is how the big talking pros, like Chris Matthews, avoids the discussion of mental illness, in how it is never addressed for candidates. Media, as much as voters, just trust each candidate's mind as sound and healthy, but we're witnessing that this isn't always the case. A lot of unstable narcissistic personalities, like Palin, come on the scene, and despite their odd behaviors, are still discussed as having any political relevancy. Yes, reporters all know the facts yet just play along; it's their responsibility to prioritize their stories (put Donald Trump on the back burner, please) and secure a reputation as reliable and truthful. Media has lost it's integrity and it's because they allow clowns to pollute the news stream. Of course they have their hands tied, because the bosses want sensational material to stay competitive. National Enquirer has taken over a once-great American foundation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sharon6:39 AM

    Thank you so much Gryphen for posting this, it is a must read in my opinion. Matt Taibi is always a voice of reason with impeccable research, it is refreshing to see in print what most of us rational people are thinking to ourselves. He has deep connections in the financial world and understands exactly how our system of corruption works, kinda like Elliot Spitzer...but it's really the stench of the liars that he hates. I will never understand how anyone could vote for those horrid men....I still believe most people with real money aren't like them. There needs to be more Gates and Buffets, these are men that actually worked and built their dreams to attain their wealth....they didn't steal it like a thief in the night. Bill and Hillary Clinton will leave a lasting legacy as I am sure both the Obamas will long after politics.

    ReplyDelete
  11. eclecticsandra7:50 AM

    Too bad we can't tax political spending to support public broadcasting.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree with the idea of a much shorter campaign season, but my concern is that if it is too short a nincompoop could slide through. Most of us realized within about five minutes of her being named as VP candidate, that Palin was a moron, but the mainstream press did not seem to get it until well after the election. Similarly, Romney seemed reasonable until he kept showing his idiocy in the primary debates. So, while I like the idea of a much shorter season, it cannot be too short.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous8:19 AM

      Have to get out of this hamster wheel of continuous election mode as no one is prepared to do anything for the country -- it's all for their arrogance to keep their seat.

      The Rep Gov of New Mexico -- a story this week, she's raised almost a million for herself for 2016. WTF? 2012 isn't over

      Delete
  13. Anonymous7:57 AM

    IMO the money spent on ads that start to annoy viewers and confuse could be better spent.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous10:04 AM

    Hate is not generated on both sides. That is strictly a Repubs thing, generating hate.

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.