Is the National Election of 2004 a Charade?
This is one of a pair of articles appearing in the November/December 2003 edition of Columbia Journalism Review. It bears the sub-banner assertion: "Neither political party is serious about addressing our major domestic problems.
Can the press move them off the dime?"
The second with a sub-banner reading "It has always had political power, but this time around, the image may finally trump substance — unless we find a way to make politics real" can be found at The Triumph of Image
"The Triumph of Image" brings together notions that we have talked about on various occasions and does not bring new insight or perspective. Embarking on the closing passages of the piece he writes:
So, how shall the 2004 campaign be reported? There are issues enough at stake. Each one has passionate advocates. But the general press, the mass media, tend to treat the real issues at arm's length, something like the way civics textbooks treat the three branches of government: descriptively, as though they occurred on Mars. It may be that the press has removed itself from the passion of our times. I don't think so. I think the truth is that we are just like everyone else and what interests us is essentially the gossip of the campaign trail. Or it may be that as reporters we are so fascinated by the machinery of politics that we forget the impact of politics.. . . .
If we want to come to grips with the way this election will be fought, we need to find a way to counter the image game. It is no longer good enough for a reporter to put in the stuff that tells the truth only to have a campaign manager say thank you for preserving the image. And it is uncomfortable to have Newsweek dismiss "the brutish simple-mindedness of the campaign press corps."
Can we use image or metaphor ourselves? Is there an Internet language that will deconstruct the spin to show what is really going on? (If anything is going on; there's always the chance that the candidate has no convictions or ideas.)
What we need now is a discussion about how to meet the world of images and bring it back to reality. When we put on the do-good hat and report on things we consciously think of as "serious," we are stuffy and unreadable; the rest of the time we create, exploit, and then abandon celebrities. We have bought derivatives.
I have a cool response to an exhortation for discussion in the context of the election year upon us. On the other hand, it is recognition expressed a major venue.
In contrast, I have a warmer response to A Tyranny of Symbols for its more detailed examination of the matter of editorial choices -- with a subtle note that editors don't make it very transparent and probably like it that way. I was also taken with the upbeat suggestions for how media could keep matters before the public -- including a small feature entitled "Still True Today" -- while giving the weight that new developments demand. If only the media would.
