Cable News Makes Bad Politics

Every news provider and we, as media trainers, whose job is to prep people who talk to news providers, know one essential truth: it's all about story-telling. Without a good story, the piece and the enterprise, won't have much audience Velcro. How come? Because that's how we first learn about the world as children - whether it's Disney, Sesame Street, Little Red Riding Hood or the Bible. We access the world through stories. Is there anyone out there who didn't learn the lesson about NOT crying for help when nothing's wrong after hearing the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf? Don't think so. As adults, we never lose the hankering to ingest information and entertainment through story-telling.

So, what makes for a good story? We're back to what every news provider and media trainer knows: FRICTION. Friction is the primo ingredient - who's up, who's down, who's in, who's out, what's right, what's wrong? Without that friction, the story really won't keep much of an audience tuned-in. Even those boiler-plate business stories about quarterly earnings deliver numbers as they compare to previous numbers. Friction.

Friction and conflict is what also makes the world go 'round: nation vs. nation, good/evil, nurture/nature, religion/science, Sunni/Shia, red states/blue states, Fox News/MSNBC, public option/socialized medicine.

In literature, movies, TV drama or comedy, friction is the engine that often drives the story to a satisfactory resolution. Homer's Odysseus does find his way home in the end and TV's Homer Simpson eventually stumbles on the error of his ways - until next week.

NOT SO WITH OUR CABLE-TV NEWS PROVIDERS. Their job description requires them to deliver friction. Friction IS the end, the additive that keeps us all tuned-in and cranked up. And this is why cable news makes for bad politics. The cable friction formula has jumped the shark into politics and governance. It works for cable news providers - it does NOT work for politicians. Never-ending conflict in politics is mostly anger, resentment and stalemate.

Universal healthcare has been on the legislative table since Franklin Roosevelt. It's been gridlocked ever since by an ideological clash defined as 'free-market' vs 'socialized medicine.' Resolution through consensus, sometimes called compromise, doesn't seem to be an option - up to now. In fact, the very notion of compromise is used as friction re-defined as 'steadfast' vs 'weak.'

Well, we now have a president whose first choice is to find accommodation - whatever the political situation. But, some folks agree with former Czech president, Vaclav Havel, who called Obama's recent Dalai Lama- China meeting decision "...a minor compromise, but exactly with these minor compromises start the big and dangerous ones, the real problems." When did thoughtful compromise become dangerous, the villain of the piece?

VacMan seems to have forgotten that democracy IS accommodation, compromise and resolution. That's how the system is set up. Our nation's capitol is in Washington because Alexander Hamilton wanted a national bank and Southerner's wanted the capitol city on their turf - an outcome both sides could live with. Governing is what Lyndon Johnson called "the art of the possible." So when White House Senior Advisor, David Axelrod, says "There will be (healthcare) compromise," he's not talking winning or losing, or what's going to animate cable news.

Cable news providers' job is to deliver continuous friction to their niche subscribers. Politicians' jobs are to deliver results to millions of us through thousands of our federal, state and local legislatures. How are you going to do that without accommodation and compromise? The reality is: it IS what's doable, not what keeps cable subscribers tuned-in and cranked up.

 

 

Comments

[fairwitness]

Compromise with those who have no respect for truth and lack conscience is capitulation to bullies and psychopaths. Compromise for the sake of compromise is ideology, not practicality.

Obama talks like an idealist but acts like an ideologue, eager to appease opponents and betray supporters in the name of reasonable compromise and a fantasy of bipartisanship. He will never accommodate enough for his enemies (and make no mistake, they ARE enemies) and every betrayal of his promises (not just the expectations of his supporters) undermines his support.

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

Laughably, the only one coming off as an ideologue... is you 'fairwitness'.

While I agree with your first sentence, there is no such thing as compromise for the sake of compromise and thus your post becomes the definition of ideologue.

Don't forget that President Obama also promised bipartisanship and solutions through compromise and if Crazy Joe Leiberman doesn't exemplify exactly why we need compromise in politics then I don't know what does - politics cannot remain rational when dealing with the irrational.

We can't go around recklessly using words like calling someone an ideologue - at least don't present contradictory evidence and act hypocritical while you do!

You are on to something though, that perhaps the Dems have gone beyond compromise into capitulation and I think you could take the facts about the two parties' positions and make a compelling case. Make it!

[fairwitness]

Roger that.

But I think you are wrong to say, "there is no such thing as compromise for the sake of compromise".

Obama's ideology appears to me to be that of compromise (in practice, capitulation) and (actually illusory) bipartisanship for it's own sake, regardless of the obvious lack of good faith and destructive intent of the other party. He seems ok jetisoning any position as soon as he's challenged--even before he's challenged.

Then you prove my point: "politics cannot remain rational when dealing with the irrational." That's the point: capitualtion BEFORE being challenged isn't rational, it's ideological.

And every day here many bloggers document very well how much the Dems have capitulated even before the time comes for compromise. The biggest example is on the single-payer issue--capitulated before even starting the process.