Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- Slaughter in Connecticut: 20 Children, 6 Adults Dead in Kindergarten Massacre
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- How the Mighty (Mississippi) Has Fallen: Historic Drought Plagues US
- Gun Lobby Speaks: We Need More Guns, Especially in Schools
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- Remember All the Children, Mr. President
- Save the Children: Tears and Tragedy in Connecticut
- Thinking the Unthinkable: On Mental Health, My Son, and Gun Violence
Popular content
Today's Top News
What I Hate About Political Coverage
Warning: this is a bit (actually, more than a bit) of a rant.
One of my pet peeves about political reporting is the fact that some of my journalistic colleagues seem to want to be in another business - namely, theater criticism. Instead of telling us what candidates are actually saying - and whether it's true or false, sensible or silly - they tell us how it went over, and how they think it affects the horse race. During the 2004 campaign I went through two months' worth of TV news from the major broadcast and cable networks to see what voters had been told about the Bush and Kerry health care plans; what I found, and wrote about, were several stories on how the plans were playing, but not one story about what was actually in the plans.
There are two big problems with this kind of reporting. The important problem is that it fails to inform the public about what matters. In 2004, very few people had any idea about the very real differences between the candidates on domestic policy. It remains to be seen whether 2008 is any better.
The other problem, which has become very apparent lately, is that this sort of coverage often fails even on its own terms, because the way things look to inside-the-Beltway pundits can be very different from the way they look to real people.
Which brings me to the Petraeus hearing.
To a remarkable extent, punditry has taken a pass on whether Gen. Petraeus's picture of the situation in Iraq is accurate. Instead, it was all about the theatrics - about how impressive he looked, how well or poorly his Congressional inquisitors performed. And the judgment you got if you were watching most of the talking heads was that it was a big win for the administration - especially because the famous MoveOn ad was supposed to have created a scandal, and a problem for the Democrats.
Even if all this had been true, it wouldn't have mattered much: if the truth is that Iraq is a mess, the public would find out soon enough, and the backlash would be all the greater because of the sense that we had been deceived yet again.
But here's the thing: new polls by CBS and Gallup show that the Petraeus testimony had basically no effect on public opinion: Americans continue to hate the war, and want out. The whole story about how the hearing had changed everything was a pure figment of the inside-the-Beltway imagination.
What I found striking about the whole thing was the contempt the pundit consensus showed for the public - it was, more or less, "Oh, people just can't resist a man in uniform." But it turns out that they can; it's the punditocracy that can't. Paul Krugman is Professor of Economics at Princeton University and a regular New York Times columnist. His most recent book is The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century.
© 2007 The New York Times
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
54 Comments so far
Show AllIn all reality, sad as it may seem, there really is no other reason to watch television news than for the horse race coverage and the entertainment of it all. The days of actual investigative reporting, free of leading notions or editorial spin is over. Olbermann is the rare exception of course, but then again, we go to him to hear is editorials more than the news he reports. Thanks to him for that, but alas, it does nothing to fight the problem of bad journalism.
Until we the public decide we are not going to support these behemoth corporations that own every damn station out there, we are going to get infotainment and only infotainment. It's great that Krugman has the balls to confront it a bit, but let's not fool ourselves and think that his opinion matters a good god damn to any of the punditocracy.
There is only one way to revolutionize television broadcast and cable news: STOP WATCHING IT! IF WE DON'T WATCH IT, THE ADVERTISERS DON'T MAKE MONEY. IF THE ADVERTISERS DON'T MAKE MONEY, THE STATION HAS TO CHANGE ITS TUNE TO GET US TO WATCH AGAIN. THE CONSUMER HAS THE POWER, AS ALWAYS. WE NEED TO STOP BITCHING AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
I like to watch the Food Network. It's really the only reason I have cable anymore.
I sometimes watch the Weather Channel if I think a storm is brewing.
I don't watch Comedy Central but sometimes I turn on the religious channels and watch the evangelists screaming when I want to laugh. Try imitating them sometime it's hilarious.
I don't subscribe to any of the movie channels and when I want news I visit cnn.com/al-jazeera.net/bbc.com and try to blur them together to get an idea what happening.
I have 2 favorite movies that I keep on DVD - What About Bob and Flashback.
Dear Paul Krugman:
Why don't you compete with your political journalist colleagues who want to be drama critics?
Why not take up the roll of military analyst? Why don't you get together with a military professional and start writing up a column that analyses in detail Bush's apparent approaching military loss in Iraq. Maps and all.
Apparently he's lost the war. It looks like he is the first president to start and lose a war. He's mis-engineered a stunning and costly defeat.
He is and styles himself as "Commander and Chief."
That's all very well, but he's losing, getting whupped over there.
Don't you think that it would be wise to replace a Commander and Chief who starts wars that he can't manage to win, or manage at all?
I'm against the war. Always was. But, until the US pulls out, isn't it imperative to replace the military commander and chief who's brought on the defeat.
Bush in fact has "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory."
If he were pitching in an important baseball game, he'd have been yanked off the mound a long time ago.
This is the first time in my life that I've seen Americans celebrate and tolerate losing and senseless loss, and the person or team responsible for causing the loss.
Speaking of the theatre:
Apparently, the play "The Producers" which has been pushed on Broadway is the essence of the Bush and neocon strategy for success: Lose to win. Is that how the thing works? You create a play with really lousy actors who stay and do stupid things, running the production into the ground in order to pocket the money put up by the investors who financed it. Hint: The Bush administration and the Iraq war would be the financed play. Taxpayers are the financeers.
Yours,
e.
The Media must remind itself (as well as remind viewers) that American citizens ARE the Government; and that everything they contribute by word or deed IS POLITICAL.