I am totally down with this Jack Shafer article on the inanity of whining about the inanity of "horse race coverage" in Presidential elections. I mean, hell, it's the only substantive coverage. Partisans who want the press to talk about the "issues" really mean that they want positive propaganda on their candidate's plan to return hope to the mantle of change and change to the belly of progress and progress to the lives of our children and our children to the future, where the little fuckers belong. I mean, Mitt Romney supports abortion and does not support abortion, loves gays and hates gays. Hillary Clinton is for the war in Iraq and against the war in Iraq. Their supposedly substantive utterances are entirely exigent--starless and fatherless, a dark water. They reflect the value of the Universal Whatever, the Categorical Eh.
9 comments:
Then why not make that your story? The Onion's "Bullshit is the biggest issue" would make for a legitimately good editorial.
Now that's a great headline. You rawk, your fuzziness.
Actually, the disappearance of issues talking makes sure that the next president is free to do anything, and it's been the case forever now. That's how the myth of the Superior Executive is advancing. By insisting on the candidate's person, instead of its policies.
From the article:
"The horse-race image encourages reporters to emphasize competition rather than to forecast results," Broh writes, arguing against the common view that reporters are keen to anoint a winner as soon as possible.
Bullshit. Have you ever watched TV mister ?
I take your point about the 'issues' blather, but the horserace stuff is repulsive and bogus. Mostly because it maintains the idiot fiction that the press is sitting in the box calling the race and we're all in the audience watching. As though the outcome of the race is solely a function of the "skill" of the competitors.
It may well be that the audience has no effect on the outcome, but explicitly setting up this metaphor and then blurting 'democracy' every other sentence makes the spectacle intolerable, if only on grounds of taste.
But maybe the reason candidates can get away with such inanity is that they know the press isn't going to subject their "policy" statements to aggressive fact-checking and reporting?
In an environment in which reporters wrote about policy and not the horserace, the candidates might be pressed to take more substantial positions.
steveb -> Also at issue is the reporters' ignorance on most issues. They simply cannot do fact-checking, because they don't even realize they're lied to.
I agree - a media that aggressively fact-checks candidates is probably a fantasy, given the social class that our major "reporters" mostly hail from, or aspire to. I was just reacting to IOZ's confusion of cause and effect.
I wonder if it's different outside the US. Is there any place on planet Earth where reporters do actual reporting, and, if so, do candidates respond to more aggressive reporting by moving beyond the empty platitudes we see here?
At least we can all agree about the little fuckers.
Post a Comment