As Eric Boehlert pointed out, the most amusing thing about the way the media has treated Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate is that it seems to have decided, at last, that it can now finally have "substantive" discussions.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer quickly reported the race was about to get "much more substantive," while colleague Gloria Borger agreed, suggesting, "the debate is going to shift onto a very substantive ground."
Over at Fox News, Carl Cameron assured viewers the arrival of Ryan meant the debate "will be a more substantive one than a lot of back-biting and name calling that we've seen in the last few weeks."
Thank heavens! Prior to Romney's decision, people in the media were, of course, completely powerless to do little more than go on camera, and, I suppose, crap their pants repeatedly in delicious helplessness. (Obviously, if the country was going through a prolonged economic crisis that featured widespread unemployment, this wouldn't be possible. Fortunately, nothing like that is going on, right?)
Of course, these great, substantive discussions are all still yet to come. That's perhaps for the best. Our quick and dirty survey of the media's reactions to the Ryan pick revealed that the men and women of political reporting and political-opinion-having are going to need to warm up for the coming Substancegeddon. For the time being, they will simply trade some basic cliches back and forth amongst themselves. The pick is bold, and it is risky. It energizes Republicans, and energizes Democrats. So it was a good decision, and/or a bad decision, because ... you know -- reasons.
But Shep Smith managed to make a quippy observation about "Lunchables," so he wins.
[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not?]