The Media Parties Like It's 1997

Looking over the political coverage of the past week, a casual observer might think s/he was back in the 1990s. There's a big scandal involving the Democratic governor of Illinois trying to sell the president-elect's senate seat. Will it hurt the party? The incoming administration? Caroline Kennedy wants to be the next junior senator from New York. Are the Democrats embracing dynastic politics? The president-elect gives a press conference announcing the new secretary of education -- in which he dodges questions and bores reporters present -- just like his obfuscating predecessors.

I sympathize. The fact is, there isn't much political news right now, though there's a great hunger for it. Obama is not yet president. He's making appointments, but those people aren't actually doing anything yet. Bush is making dog videos. And Congress has adjourned after deadlocking on the auto bailout.

But what we see here is more than just an attempt to fill space. The media is falling back into old habits perfected during the vaporous Clinton scandals of the 1990s. The not-so-subliminal message in this coverage: You thought things would be different with Obama. But they're not. Politics as usual. Scandals. Spin. Coverups. And, if we're lucky, a feeding frenzy!

Drill down a little, though, and most of this huffing is off-base. Take Dana Milbank's piece on Obama's press conference. Is it reasonable to expect a press conference announcing the new education secretary to be anything but deadly dull? Is it reasonable to expect Obama to step into the state-level political tempest over how to choose his replacement in the Senate? Or to opine on an investigation in which he is at best very tangentially involved? When Clinton or Bush "dodged questions" about investigations, they (or their subordinates) were the ones being investigated. I'm not saying that scenario will never come to pass with Obama -- odds are, it will at some point -- just that the accusation is silly right now.

Enormous changes are brewing in the country and in government itself. Big Government is back -- and it may be the only thing that can save us. This has tremendous implications for American politics. The political media, however, doesn't seem to get this. It's bad at covering the actual workings of government, the nexus of politics and policy. In a pinch, it always returns to a set of commonly-held tropes and cliches forged during the Clinton scandals of the 1990s. Proven cable chat-generators, these focus heavily on the habitual hypocrisy of politicians, the always-disjointed relationship between their words and actions -- but not on the substance of the actions themselves.

This is both predictable and comforting -- all the more reason we're seeing it now, when no one knows what the hell is going to happen. But not promising.

johnmcquaid.com/blog

Follow John McQuaid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnmcquaid

Comments

[UKOH]

Obama is a close to an honest politician as we will ever get!

Media, get over it already! Stop manufacturing scandals!

Of course Obama is going to chose his time and place for putting his viewpoint into public domain. He would be irresponsible not to. Now imagine if he had caved in to media demands for information about the Blagojovich scandal. Would the media have thanked him? Of course not! There would be a huge scandal about how Obama ignored the public interest expressed by Fitzgerald for his own narrow political gain! Actually that would have been more of a story than the current manufactured one.

So, media, get over it and find other ways to boost your ratings than divisiveness, artificial sensationalism, rumour mongering and scandal generation!

[woody1291]

I wonder why anyone ever respects the so called media anymore. When the news cycle is slow they seem to think it is their job to make news instead reporting news. When a federal prosecutor with the clout of Fitzgerald asks (or tells) you not to comment on an ongoing investigation then if you are a decent person you follow his instructions. OBama has no choice but to do so and this does not have anything to do with his promise of transparency. There is no so called liberal media. They have jumped on OBama with both feet trying and hoping to find some hint of a scandal. The media cares little or nothing about reporting the news as it happens their only desire is to find scandal whether real or imagined to boost ratings.

[blackhole2008]

Media 10 commandments:

When you don't get the answer you want, keep asking until you do.

Spend more time speculating on what might happen, then what did happen.

Talk about theories long enough, until people believe them as facts.

Ask questions with possible answers built in.

Report anything from any undisclosed source.

Encourage people to to publicly comment on other persons, then go to those persons for public replies.

When asking a subject loaded, pointed questions, maintain an innocent look.

Become part of the news by interjecting your own opinion wherever possible.

Solve official investigations before the officials do.

When short on stories make stuff up.

[Bonobo]

John, why are you going back to the 1990's? Are you implying the televised media were less frivolous these last eight years? Or during the Reagan years? Or are you trying to say that they're making things up because Obama's as squeaky clean as Clinton was?
You are also painting with much too broad a brush. There has always been insubstantial reporting in the popular media, and informative outlets that you have to know where to look.
It's also correct to ding Obama for dodging questions on his actual job, like when he was a jerk to that reporter asking about his Hillary hypocrisy.

[potshots]

Too much Rahm Immanuel, not enough Howard Dean.

I don't think the present strategy is going to work for Obama. He is overestimating the talent he brought on board.

[GordonA]

"Big government is back"? How can you reasonably posit that it was ever gone? Do you think today's government under GWB and the current congress is medium or even small? It seems to me that it's size only moves in one direction.

[RonMar]

I applaud you John for this excellent thumbnail sketch of Liberal Democrat and Liberal-dominated, by their own admission, media mutual support and chicanery.

[kjo46]

How can you call Fox News the liberal media? How can you call any corporate-owned media liberal? All they have been is yes-men for the neocons.

[lisakaz2]

More rethugggeee talking pts make the news. How were they "in the tank" for O'bama again???

[indy100]

Hence the reason I watch BBC America to get actual news, I skim the local newspaper online, and read the Huff Post. American "news" is usually anything but. It's been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and is primarily celebrity fluff, rumor and gossip with an occasional actual news item thrown in.

[billw8017]

The news is not about the news. It's entertainment supported by advertising. When the Chicago Tribune got its contract with Dominicks Foods, we saw a sudden flurry of front page stories mentioning Dominicks. The Milwaukee paper gave Sentry Foods free mention in its broadcasting arms and favorable news stories. So, the advertising department gives editorial space.

More, in the past years, newspapers have been cutting back on reporters. Naturally, some emphasis will be laid on Washington, and, in the shortage of other national coverage, national stories will tend to have a Washington connection. So, the MSM agrees Blagojevich has no illicit connection to the Obama team and that team should not comment on an ongoing criminal investigation, but as this works out, the MSM asks what they're hiding (!).

[bigkay]

The BEST source of news is Asia Times-they predicted the sub-prime meltdown 2 years ago.
Their journalists are the best in the world!
Rachel Maddow MSNBC is the only news worth watching in America.

[WritusMaximus]

Yup, thumbs up for Rachel. Keith should learn from Rachel. Rachel is so confidant in her views that she invites to her show folks who have opposing points of view. Not so with KO., who only feels confident with I-Share-Yo­ur-Thought­s people. Ko also is known to massage news/facts. He has beaten Billo in this demographic subset and on this particular day, he beats billo today and yesterday, etc. which means he consistently loses most of the time but the man won't admit it. Just yersterday he trumpeted that during Obama's last news conference there were no questions about Blago. Surprise! Obama picks who can ask, takes 4 or less questions. Reporters not toeing the line just won't get a chance from now on---read about the reporter who got booted out of Obama's plane during the campaign.

Keith can do better. He is smart, and his acidic style would be a hit if he stuck to the facts and was not afraid to have on his show the appeasers, the puppets, the YES men and women, the robots who work, have worked, and or defend the Bushed administration.

[bluepearl2001]

As the world struggles to stay in orbit, I find that I am about as fed up with the media--and the Right Wing Fat Cat Corporate folks who have taken control of it--as I am of vapid "News" of fabricated scandals or how many more children Brangelina plans to adopt or what Diane and Robin et al gossip about during boring weekly "Water Cooler" chats.
The fact is, the Media and we folks, who watch and MAYBE even READ whatever media slop is dished up or made up, are LAZY. We have forgotten how to flex our thinking muscles and then wonder why we can't make sense of anything.
I pray that the new administration whips up a grand smorgasbord of newsworthy changes that will inspire the Media folks to get off their @sses and begin to produce real, substantive journalism. You know, REAL NEWS...

[seashar]

Cogent comment, bluepearl2001. Yet, for any paid journalist, I'm afraid "substantive journalism" is an oxymoron. Why? These folks are employed; thus, there are stakeholders who, well, have a stake in not saying this, or frequently saying that.

Only news that originates from someone with intellectual and analytical credentials and who at the same time, is not beholden to an employer, who is truly independent or at least, states their "stake" upfront, is news that I'll be interested in. (You say then that I don't read much news? Unfortunately, yes. I also have a rule:

BELIEVE NOTHING

[live by the golden rule]

At the announcement of the interior and agriculture team , the CBS reporter asked the predictable "you are not keeping your promise" question even though the President elect has answered the same question many times saying that the prosecutor has asked him to wait to release his [already completed as promised] review until Monday. What was on the evening news? The CBS reporter's question.
Similarly, after the energy and environment announcement this week, Wolf Blitzer said, and now to what's on everyone's mind, and turned to the governor discussion. Actually,what was on my mind was learning the achievements of the appointees and the substantive choices ahead.
The press gave us the summer of the shark and Gary Condit in 2001, even though there were clear indications of a coming large attack.
The press ignored the Weapons' Inspectors statements that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein still had WMDs, and instead hyped the buildup to the war, ignoring those of us who opposed it. Blitzer, with his marshall music introduction to his [let's go to] War in Iraq program again was guilty, but so were many others
A whole raft of journalists and on-air "talent" should just go away and be replace with people who know whom to invite to their programs to discuss the substance of energy and economic policy.
As you say, the press is getting its test, and, in many prominent cases, it is failing.

[JScott]

Sad but true.

[baliboy]

I also wish everyone, including Mr. McQuaid, would stop blithely referring to "the Clinton scandals of the 1990s." If a "scandal" falls in the forest and there was nothing to it, should it have made a sound? And was it "a scandal" (or a faux one)? Virtually everything the Clintons were accused of (except an incidence of private behavior) was bogus or greatly exaggerated. Including the "40 murders" they committed, such as "Vince Foster" and "Ron Brown." So they weren't really "scandals"...it was scandalous that they even occupied the press. It's time to give them the same deference that you so readily afford Obama. Who hasn't been investigated for the better part of two decades...

[bioluminescence]

The scope of change Obama has promised directly or indirectly will open up the mother of all cans of worms--wealth redistribution. The UN has reported that 2 per cent of the world's wealthiest own more than 50 per cent of the world's wealth. The poorest 50 per cent collectively own 1 per cent. There is enough food in the world and knowhow to produce it. Only distribution problems cause starvation. Likewise there is enough wealth in the world to take care of its people. Only distribution problems cause deprivation. Meltdowns don't really hurt the rich. Money isn't lost. It just changes hands. There is enough to go around. The problem is, it's just not getting around.

[josephXY]

Good article. It may be useful to point out the rapidly changing economic situtation of the newspapers and the media. The media have a fantastic quality in self-presentation, apart from praising themselves like no other industry or individual would do. And declaring themselves as highly successful financially and in terms of audience. Remember all those articles that showed them as growing revenue and whatever? There is a bit of a bluff included considering the rapidly continuing downsizing, closures. etc.
There are too many vanished media consumers who are saving themselves a little bit of
money and a lot of problems coming along with media - consumption. Sort of a silent
majority, but with that saving - habit they are the one's who really have become the
powerful group. One could write fun - essays about this situation. That's why advertisers
are getting a really hard lesson from the market about the efficiency of ad expenses.
If interested in data, searchwords: (by using Google, then click on NEWS, all relevant
reports, etc. to those come up)
+newspaper revenues+
+ad revenue+ .... and more to that effect
(there is something good in the bad in the media crisis)

[2008CaliforniaFan]

Why don't they Report on a REAL story...? Haliburton....?

How much "Profit" did they make from Bush's Economic Restructure-...war?

And what was the Price..? Not only were they openly given the contracts but where is some 'transparency" from the GAO.... or Somebody.
We need to know before Cheney and his 'Friends' go skipping down the Yellow Brick Road... paved with OUR Gold.

Were they charging us 600 dollars for hammers like in past Defense Contracts. Does no one care. Who will give us THOSE answers?
Does anyone know which Congressional Committee is responsible for gathering and providing the Facts... to US..?

[DIAGUY]

Haliburton is primarily a defense contractor who did very well because of its association with Cheney and Bush. Now, you've got Gore and his cronies that have profited greatly because of 'global warming'. You will start to see friends and relatives of Obama sitting on the boards and managing these new start ups that are going to fiddle with 'alternative energy'. It will be basically the same game with different players. I hope that Barry's sheeple won't think that things will change that much. That's why the global warming discussions are 'over' , it exists and if you question it your ignorant or unpatriotic. Way toooooo many $$$$$$$"s at stake.