Theories abound as to the cause of this widespread and growing indifference to public affairs, each with its own truth and contribution.  The dominant view is that since Watergate and Vietnam, American voters carry a profound mistrust and disconnection from politics, believing that whatever happens inside the Beltway either doesn't affect them, or is so thoroughly corrupt as to be beyond repair.  The basis for this view is that the politicians themselves, through sins of omission and commission, have ruined their own vocation, and low voter turn-out and interest is the how the people communicate their disaffection.  Fair enough. 

I want to advance a slightly different view, this one from the perspective of media studies and made known by several great analysts including James Fallows and Thomas Patterson.  Fallows likens modern coverage of politics to sports coverage.  Patterson argues that the press suffers from a kind of "waterfront cynicism," resulting from too much time on the front lines and not enough with Joe and JoAnn Sixpack.  That is, reporters are pitifully out of touch with real voters, and consequently end up writing stories for each other.  

The common thread of Fallows and Patterson's work is that reporters are few and far between these days.  Operating journalists now are primarily interpreters and commentators, whose ideologies and perspectives not only color the news, they are the news.  Saying their biased or slanted would be overstating the observation.  More precisely, they have been steeped in a deep and all-consuming bath of tired resignation that prohibits them from conveying campaign news in a fresh way.  

Fallows contends that television coverage of politics is more like watching the NBA play-offs than creating and maintaining democracy.  The obsession with "the horse race," polling, and campaign staffing does nothing to educate the voters about the issues or the candidates, but instead forces them to see politics through the lens of entertainment.  The next time you watch the news, observe closely the campaign coverage and watch for the following clue phrases:

"In an effort to reach out to _____ voters . . . "

"Hoping to attract the elusive  _____ vote . . ."

"Candidate X took this photo-op here at Townville to win the hearts of those ____ "

Mr. X's new message of ___ is designed to ____"

These are just a few examples of the kind of language frame and frame choice that the media will use to convey a sense of insider-ness and smug superiority.  The assumption of this kind of coverage is that, as Fallows and Patterson say, politics is just light entertainment.  It doesn't really matter to anyone.  In fact, it's almost as though it's not in reality at all, much like watching a movie or a drab sit-com.   No matter what the candidates do, it's simply to get votes.  They have no grand purpose or higher calling.  So why not tune it out, or just watch real "fake" politics on TV on in the theater in the form of "West Wing" or "Bulworth." 

I dub this kind of framing "strategic" or "oppositional" framing because it posits the media and the viewer as simultaneously inside and outside the campaign, wise enough to know and anticipate every move and understand as another attempt to manipulate some dupes into compliance, yet outside enough to know that we shant be duped.  Strategic framing is the journalistic tool of choice for those reporters who experience chronic cases of Patterson's "waterfront cynicism."  Since many of them have been on the bus or trail or White House lawn for years, they have "seen everything" and can easily tell us how and why the candidate is doing something.  Of course, the reason is always the same:  to improve their image and get votes.  The predictability of this frame is only surpassed by its unfalsifiability.  Cynicism of this kind is so debilitating that it deprives one of the ability to see any subject unmotivated by greed, self-interest, and power.  The embodiment of this disease is Christopher Hitchens, who has made a rather nasty career of speculating on the dark urges of seemingly noble people, including Mother Teresa. 

A strategy story encourages voters to "see through" the veil of shifty-eyed deception and dwell on the manipulation underneath, it puts the voters on the side of the media interpreter and against the politician.  Over time, it becomes difficult to see any candidate as laudable, brave, trustworthy, or credible.  Therefore the first casualty of this coverage is open-mindedness.  The media can easily cut off from us many perceptual options, leaving us with the overwhelming lens of cynicism to look through.  

Let's remember, though hard it may be, that it hasn't always been like this.  As Neil Postman observes in Amusing Ourselves to Death, throngs of several hundred used to gather to hear the Lincoln-Douglas debates i in the 1850s.  Even more recently, Americans regularly took the daily newspaper, read it over breakfast, and voted in greater numbers, (above 70%  turnout until the late 1960s).   The American people have not changed so much as they have been changed by the media's regrettable decision to translate politics through the language of cleverness and mistrust. 

The second casualty is information, that is, helpful factual data that can aid voters in deciding who best represents their views and deserves their votes.  After the lens of cynicism has been imposed, it is very difficult to even imagine voting for anyone.  What's the point, after all?  They will just do whatever they want, or what the rich lobbyists say.  And if they do propose a bill that might help me, I won't get a penny of it because the government has never helped me.  Never mind the decent roads, emergency services,  safe food, and relatively clean air and water we enjoy. 

And finally the third and most tragic casualty of strategy coverage is concern.  Apathy reigns dominant after all the reasons to care and engage have been systematically yet surreptitously eliminated right behind our eyes.  As Huxley predicted in Brave New World, the conquest of the many by the few need not be exercised by force, but more successfully by distraction and consensual amusement.   After we have learned that politics is not about you and me and our future, and just about image, elections, and money, and is therefore irrelevant and boring, then the stage is set for truly regrettable actions to be taken in our name.  But who cares, there's a new episode of Buffy on tonight, and I heard she shows her navel.  

The upshot of all of this is that there are many signs that media cynicism has created its own antidote:  third parties and alternative politics.   Jesse Ventura, the Green Party, the Reform Party, and the many efforts to grassroots-organize through the Internet are just a few examples of how concerned people, committed to democracy have sought to battle the mainstream press and parties with a dose of authenticity and solutions.  Alternative media have also proven to be especially refreshing in their eye-opening investigations (Mother Jones) and scrutinizing inquiry (Brill's Content, Z Magazine).  So hope springs eternal in the heart of Joe Six Pack, but I would still him advise to turn off When Dust Bunnies Attack or Chris Matthew's 945th pointless envy-driven discussion of Rick Lazio's new campaign ad and really learn about who he plans to vote for in November.  It won't be easy, but it can happen.

BraveNews World
Email Webmaster
Staff Info