The main stream media must be experiencing a lull in political stories they feel are news-worthy (emphasis indicates disparate understanding of actual news-worthiness). We have been deluged with coverage that seems questionably relevant.
Example #1: Michael Bloomberg is not running for president. I'm sure we were all losing a lot of sleep over that one. America has passed the point of no return as far as the top contenders are concerned, whether we like it or not. Was anyone still pinning their hope on Bloomberg running? Did they actually think he would have a chance so late in the game? Its a moot point that seems to have flown over the heads of the collective media. And just to over-inflate Bloomberg's importance to this election they are playing up the question of who he will support as if it could be a crucial turning point.
Example #2: Ralph Nader is running again. Oh boy. This little revelation has been met with a collective shrug of the shoulders and shaking of the head. Don't get me wrong, I believe in having an open, democratic process. Nader, or anyone else, should be able to run for office if they choose to do so. And don't give me that "Nader took away votes from Gore, thus handing the election to Bush" line either. Candidates have to take responsibility for their own actions. If your going to point fingers, point them at Gore or the election process itself. As for Nader, he is becoming a punchline. The media, or anyone else, shouldn't worry too much about any impact Nader would have. So lets all take a deep breathe and ignore all the "what-ifs" the media throws our way.
Example #3: Angelina Jolie chimes in at the Washington Post. Some people get really riled up over celebrities entering the political sphere. I'm not one of those people. Look at this way: they are just people entitled to their own opinions only they have a platform that the media sometimes pays much too much attention to. Her editorial was actually mostly concerned with humanitarian issues, but hinting at the success of the troop surge and implying knowledge of what the troops collectively think may cross out of that realm. As the wife of a military member, having lived within the military community for several years, I get a little twitchy when I hear someone like Angelina Jolie making these kinds of statements. But I don't get all bent out of shape over it because I know that, ultimately, a celebrity has little influence or relevance when it comes to something like the war in Iraq.
So, why all the coverage concerning irrelevant stories? Are they "giving us what we want" (a weak claim we hear time and time again) or what they think we want? If we tune out the "noise" will it make an impact on the main stream media or will it be business as usual?