The Media Isn't Here To Tell You The News...

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5763148142343308159.post-40800026734508897112008-07-24T10:45:00.003-04:002008-07-25T10:11:50.521-04:00The Media Isn't Here To Tell You The News...<div align="justify">...it's here to tell you a story. What I mean by that is that the media doesn't really see its job as recording and reporting new facts and circumstances, or updating its analysis of events as situations change. It has a story, or rather a collection of stories to tell. These stories have narrative structures, they have drama, they have conflict, they are "catchy" and "attention-grabbing." They are designed to keep you in front of the t.v., or keep you from putting down that dead-tree newspaper. Just like Hollywood blockbusters and hit t.v. shows, they are all about capturing eyeballs. Ratings drive ad revenues for t.v. and radio. Subscriptions and newsstand sales drive ad revenues for newspapers. Ad revenues are the end-all and be-all for the media. There's no higher purpose at stake, and anyone who claims differently is terminally full of shit (rather like those poor deluded slobs who refer to the practice of law as a higher calling...speaking from personal experience, give me a fucking break). Consider the ongoing Presidential election. There is a narrative in place, one that "works" in the sense of getting people to watch the content attached to the ads, or read the articles that bracket the ads. And that narrative isn't about to get changed because of pesky little things like facts. Among the core elements of this narrative is the idea that John McCain is "seasoned" and "experienced" when it comes to foreign policy, while Obama is "inexperienced." McCain has the advantage, Obama has to play catch-up. That's the narrative, regardless of the fact that McCain talks about problems on the <a href='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC0Y7zMcn_4'>Iraq-Pakistan border</a>; refers to the Czech Republic as <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/politics/23mccain.html?scp=1&sq=McCain%20Czechoslovakia%20Czech&st=cse'>Czechoslovakia</a>; confuses <a href='http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html'>Sunnis and Shiites</a>; and seems to believe that <a href='http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/22/eveningnews/main4283813.shtml'>the Surge predated the Anbar Awakening</a>. As Fred Kaplan wrote so eloquently, if Obama had made similar gaffes and mis-statements, <a href='http://www.slate.com/id/2195865/'>"the media and the McCain campaign would have been all over him like red ants on a wounded puppy."</a>. McCain has offered convincing demonstrations that he is either 1) woefully ignorant; 2) extremely sloppy with the statements he makes in public; 3) daft; or 4) senile. Don't worry, though. You can count on the media to continue telling you how much experience McCain has, how much "gravitas", how "serious" he is. Because that's the story that sells, that puts the proverbial butts in the proverbial seats. They've got soft drinks, razor blades, and Hondas to sell, people. Running stories about the dottering old fool who doesn't even know the basic geography of the area he wants to keep occupying militarily for 100 years isn't going to help the media sell Gogurt and Lucky Charms, even if those stories are, you know, true. EDIT: I originally credited Will Saletan with the "red ants on a wounded puppy" quote, but as one of our commenters pointed out, it was Fred Kaplan who wrote that article (and provided the links that I included above). </div>One Drophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00595350723609487252noreply@blogger.com