E Pluribus Unum

by shep

Bob Somerby continues his invaluable deconstruction of the endlessly shallow, partisan treatment of Democratic politicians by mainstream "journalists" (he has also “unofficially” nominated Glen Greenwald for a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the subject). Say what you will about tough criticism of both parties on matters of substance, it is the Democrats who are relentlessly diminished and treated as unserious, through childish and repetitious stories about them concerning sex, haircuts, brown suites and windsurfing.

Somerby sees “big money” at the heart of the problem:

“Sometimes, money makes people get dumb; sometimes, people play dumb to get it. But nothing else can explain the haircut wars—wars which have raged for the past fifteen years—other than the corrupting role being played here by big money.”

While he doesn’t explain exactly how this money influences the punditocracy to be petty only toward Democrats, I do agree that it insulates them from the reality and the interests of the people they are supposed to be informing, which was not so much the case not too many years ago. But I have a slightly different take on the pampered press poodles, vis-à-vis, their superficial treatment of Democrats.

First off, I should point out, this is quite obviously the product of the press being inculcated with Republican frames about serious Daddy Republicans and emotional Mommy Democrats. That mostly explains the partisan aspect but still not the clueless, juvenile fixation on these silly stories.

And not enough can be said about the market-share-driven Barnumization© of journalism itself, especially on television. Katie Couric and Brian Williams sure are cute but can you imagine Walter Cronkite lending his giant disembodied head for a regular bit on a comedy cable show?

Nevertheless, I think that the biggest factor in the relentless substancelessness of the stars of the mainstream press may be their fundamental competitiveness. It is more than just a trait, it is a way of thinking, a psychological orientation, that they happen to share with politicians (which is why they seem more like the people they are supposed to report on than their everyman customers).

They all see things simply in terms of winning and losing – politics – in the highly competitive arena of politics and high-powered media. It’s one reason why, in general, they fixate on politics and almost never drill down into policy – almost the exact opposite of what they should be doing.

Their success is quite obviously not based on the quality of their work (understanding and explaining what’s going on in the world), since there are lots of smarter people who could do the job better. They get to the top by how well they play the game and how well they "play" on TV. Think of George Bush and Chris Mathews as being flip sides of the same, nearly worthless political/journalistic coin of the realm.

They aren’t stupid, it’s just that what should be fundamental to their work – what happens out in the real world and why – is of little interest to them compared to their own personal success and the inside game. They live in the world of the petty and the meaningless, except that their fortunes and fame hang on whether they understand it and exploit it successfully. So, in the end, they just don’t quite understand the world of the meaningful and important because they aren’t really paying that much attention.

It really explains their obtuseness about what matters better than the fact that they’re wealthy. There are actually some wealthy people who are not hopelessly shallow. You just won’t read their columns in Politico or see them anchoring the evening news.