On behalf of the American people, I would like to say this about the 2006 election coverage by the national media.
It sucks.
The print coverage is all "conventional wisdom" and 20-20 hindsight. It assumes a steady-state universe, when in fact it’s the results of elections which define the next cycle’s conventional wisdom. It has no sense of the past or of the future, and as a result the people involved are very, very easy to spin.
The TV coverage is even worse.
It’s 99% horserace and 1% "issues" coverage that’s nothing but twin talking-heads from either side arguing so loudly you can’t hear anything. All backed by the cackling of anchors who think this is fun, not deadly serious business about the future of their country.
MSNBC has been the worst offender. Thanks to the coming closing of the network, the MSNBC "talent" has been engaged for the last week in a steel cage anchor death match, with jobs at 30 Rock the prize.
And the game is rigged.
Some, like Lester Holt, seem to be working for jobs at Fox. Others, like Norah O’Donnell,
seem to be hoping a local station or syndicator will call. The game is
completely rigged, because only the top names like Chris Matthews, Joe
Scarborough and Brian Williams can get the top names on their air. The
others fight for scraps. And none of it — none of it — has a damned thing to do with our country, with the issues facing it, or with the future we share.
Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.
By contrast, the Internet coverage is at least diverse. You can
choose your spin, and listen to it constantly. The spinners will often
admit both to their own misgivings and their own fears. Every once in a
while a little honesty peaks through the clouds, as with John Cole’s
recent defection. People who are involved with issues get all the time
and space they need to make their case. You can accept or reject what
you want.
Back before the Web was spun, we had nothing but the TV and
newspaper coverage. Yet somehow we survived. These days, I don’t know
how.
