No Big Deal?

A correspondent writes in apropos of my criticism of Paul Krugman's take on the contrast between press coverage of 1994 and 2006 to suggest that it was objectively a bigger deal for the GOP to take control of the House for the first time in decades than it was for Democrats to return to the majority after a twelve year absence. That may well be right.

Much more persuasive than any of this, it seems to me, is Krugman's next post, slamming political journalism as theater criticism. I think this is right on. What's more, I think it's this -- the superficiality and trivial nature of contemporary press coverage of political -- that explains the "so-called liberal media" phenomenon. The dominant approach has an overarching reactionary valence that far outweights the political views of any particular person or set of persons who participate in the system.

Comments

A correspondent writes in apropos of my criticism of Paul Krugman's take on the contrast between press coverage of 1994 and 2006 to suggest that it was objectively a bigger deal for the GOP to take control of the House for the first time in decades than it was for Democrats to return to the majority after a twelve year absence. That may well be right.

A correspondent? That was me! Credit where it's due, eh?

Posted by Al | September 20, 2007 6:05 PM

There is a sad explanation for the shift of political journalism from civic engagement to theater criticism. Journalists now understand that resistance is futile. There will be no Emile Zola "J'accuse!" moments. The fix is in. Rupert Murdoch and the other permanent owners of commercial media have taken care of that.

The public has been reduced to the blurry and ephemeral samizdat of fringe blogs. The "professional" journalists have no more notion of affecting public opinion or the course of events than spectators at a play.

Bush is a war criminal at worst and a grotesquely deformed human being at best. Yet David Gregory asks him polite questions. It is all over but the fall of the curtain and the polite applause. Orwell was correct, but it was not the boot and whip that brought us tyranny and endless war; it was BMWs, wine cellars, plasma TVs and the worship of personal "success."

Posted by HH | September 20, 2007 6:46 PM

The real problem is that liberals don't say anything definite, worth quoting.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | September 20, 2007 7:03 PM

First off, Al, you and SomeCallMeTim (love the name) have it exactly right. I still remember the morning I woke up and learned that Republicans had captured the house; I was so incredulous I checked a second source.

It is atypical of me to agree with Krugman, but I do here. It would be nice if more of the reporting was sound reporting of facts on substance with logical analysis (bounded by the reporters self-known limitations).

An anecdote from my personal experience might be instructive. My wife has a high-school friend who has taken various reporting and writing type jobs. At one point I learned she was writing for Investor's Business Daily. This floored me because I was sure she had no business interest or experience. My wife's response was to the effect of: so what she can write.

The skill of writing is important and it may well may be rare, but I fear we are running into the problem of reporters who can communicate well but don't have the other skills/experience to make the communication worth reading. There is too much research (i.e. looking up what some one else had to say and using that in lieu of analysis) and not enough independent thought.

Posted by Keith | September 20, 2007 8:35 PM

When one of your colleagues on the OP ED page is a theatre critic; what, the irony didn't fly up
at you. Krugman has been duped fairly easy for such a distinguished economist (ie: taken in by
a fake Enron trading floor)He's drifted from his
nuanced free market view; to an almost lockstep statism. He's been crying wolf so often, since 2001? that when the correction does happen; we
haven't repealed the business cycle, right, it
will seem anticlimactic. His splenetic outbursts
include anticipating being sent to Gitmo, to Der
Spiegel in 2003, comparing Bush to Marcos (same
time period)and predicting that "Enron not September 11th, would be the most significant event over time". Very much a grand guignol theatre critic, I say.

Posted by narciso | September 20, 2007 11:09 PM

Many people are apparently content to learn only about the horse races and the political theater. I assume this is because they don't regard most policies––whether it's an illegal war costing hundreds of billions or the usual scams perpetuated by the bilious clot of lawyers who run Washington––as things that affect their lives or threaten their comfort zones. Until people start feeling the effects, I doubt they will demand more from political journalists or politicians. Expecting or wanting more is easy, but it means nothing to them as long as we continue to tune in, buy magazines, and keep the economy rolling along. We are all spectators and consumers.

Posted by tinisoli | September 20, 2007 11:22 PM

What in the world does "overarching reactionary valence" mean?

Posted by THS | September 21, 2007 2:05 AM

valence |ˈvāləns| noun

1. (Chemistry) the combining power of an element, esp. as measured by the number of hydrogen atoms it can displace or combine with : carbon always has a valence of 4. • [as adj. ] relating to or denoting electrons involved in or available for chemical bond formation : molecules with unpaired valence electrons.

2. (Linguistics) the number of grammatical elements with which a particular word, esp. a verb, combines in a sentence.

So an "overarching reactionary valence" seems to involve right-wing architect-chemists. It's not entirely clear to me either, but Matt went to Harvard and I trust he wouldn't just go throwing phrases like that around.

Posted by James Gary | September 21, 2007 8:56 AM

Putting aside the "valence" issue, "reactionary" is the wrong word here. Matt means that the dominant mode of media discourse tends to preserve the status quo, i.e., it is conservative, not that it tends to undo the recent leftist changes, which would be reactionary.

This is assuming that Matt didn't mean "valance." You never know.

Posted by y81 | September 21, 2007 9:04 AM

Obviously alluding to the movie Liberty Valence. So we're talking about Burt Lancaster here.
Overarching is a sly reference to the fact that the actor was circus acrobat/trapeze artist early in his career.

reactionary -- suggests the swashbuckling pirates Burt played -- compassionate conservative.

Far as the no news news goes - check ownership and I'm not talking Fox here. GE, Time Warner etc. Did not cover Gulf Of Tonkin any better than Powell's ludicrous speech at the U.N. for that matter.

For instance --- What the hell is Israel doing bombing in Syria? Reaction of the nyt = what are those rag heads hiding and where + US and Israel share info.

God knows who own the NYT.

Posted by dunnage | September 22, 2007 11:55 AM

Obviously alluding to the movie Liberty Valence. So we're talking about Burt Lancaster here.
Overarching is a sly reference to the fact that the actor was circus acrobat/trapeze artist early in his career.

reactionary -- suggests the swashbuckling pirates Burt played -- compassionate conservative.

Far as the no news news goes - check ownership and I'm not talking Fox here. GE, Time Warner etc. Did not cover Gulf Of Tonkin any better than Powell's ludicrous speech at the U.N. for that matter.

For instance --- What the hell is Israel doing bombing in Syria? Reaction of the nyt = what are those rag heads hiding and where + US and Israel share info.

God knows who owns the NYT.

Posted by dunnage | September 22, 2007 11:55 AM