Saturday, January 12, 2008

Reader of the Pack

Latest Newspaper Column:

Ah, memories. Remember the Clinton Juggernaut? Hillary Clinton was unstoppable. She had all this money. She was going to roll across the primary landscape like the Mongols across a steppe, sweeping all rivals aside.

At least that's what the press thought, way back then. And by "way back then," I mean six weeks ago.

Then, some pundits were predicting her exit from the race, or at least a major retooling and restructuring of her campaign. She was "vulnerable." She was "floundering." And all she did was lose the Iowa caucuses.

But wait! What's that? Hillary wins New Hampshire! Now it's Obama who's the one in trouble. And Edwards.

Argh. Two primaries and I'm already sick of the whole thing. And I'm usually a political junkie.

See, the thing is, a lot of the very media savants who predicted Hillary's imminent demise were the very same people acting as if Obama, Edwards, Richardson and -- wait a minute, don't tell me, I'll remember it in a second -- oh yeah, Kucinich, might as well not even show up.

And then, when she wins another primary, the same people are all yammering about the "Comeback Kid." These people switch positions faster and with even less shame than Mitt Romney, and I didn't even think that was possible.

It's powerfully reminiscent of the same stage in the 2004 presidential campaign. Before Iowa, Howard Dean was the juggernaut. He was unstoppable. He was raising funds like a preacher at a revival meeting. And then he lost Iowa, he went a little over the top in trying to rally his troops, resulting in the famous "Dean Scream," and the next thing you know, John Kerry was the Anointed One in the eyes of the same press who'd been calling Dean a lock for the nomination a couple of weeks before.

So what can we learn from this? Well, one thing we can learn is that no one knows anything, at least in the early stages of the campaign. In the seemingly endless run-up to primary season, and basically up until Super Tuesday, you should view any talking head or ink-stained wretch talking about "front runners" and "juggernauts" with the same wariness you'd show to a greasy guy in a bad comb-over and a cigar sticking out of his mouth, standing by the betting window at the track and whispering to you he's got a "sure thing, buddy, a sure thing."

Maybe it's just because I'm getting old and crotchety, but the press coverage of this primary campaign has caused me to use bad language, throw things at the TV, and grind my teeth to a previously unheard-of degree.

I mean, is it just me or does the press seem even more obsessed with irrelevant trivia this year than ever before? Why isn't Obama wearing an American flag pin? Is Giuliani actually taking cell phone calls from his wife during speeches? How much did John Edwards pay for a haircut? Should Mike Huckabee have done a "Merry Christmas" ad? Did Hillary tip her waitress?

And now, the latest brouhaha over whether Hillary cried on camera when speaking to an audience in New Hampshire, and what did it mean and whether it was real or faked and dear God, will these people for once think about something important? Frankly, from what I've seen, to call the American campaign press a pack of blithering idiots would be a legally actionable slander on the blithering idiot community.

Back in the '70s, writer Timothy Crouse, in his groundbreaking book "The Boys on the Bus," coined the term "pack journalism" to describe the phenomenon where members of the press, jammed together in close proximity day after day, start thinking alike, writing alike, and basically being afraid to break out and do any real digging or, you know, reporting. He recounted stories of editors calling reporters in the field and asking, "Are you sure about this story? (Insert name of big paper) doesn't have this."

Eventually, what happens is that certain themes develop that become the conventional wisdom: Obama's likeable. Hillary isn't. Gore was stiff and boring, except when he was claiming to have invented the Internet (a claim which, it bears repeating, Gore never actually made). McCain's a hothead, etc., etc. The problem is, "conventional" wisdom rarely is. Wisdom, that is.

Now, however, "pack journalism" is combined with an even more dangerous factor: the insatiable hunger of the 24-hour news networks. With all that time to fill, they have to talk about something. And, unfortunately, since talking about policy is, like, boring and stuff, what they seize on is the political equivalent of celebrity gossip.

Before too much longer, the only difference between CNN and E! is going to be that CNN shows more old white guys.


Anonymous said...

Try being female and dealing with the idea that another enlightened female may have voted for Hilary just because the ridiculous woman cried. Give me a break. Yeah, that's why she won in New Hampshire, cause she shed a tear and we stupid women flocked to the polls. Jesus.

JD Rhoades said...

I've also heard the theory that the press' clear bias against Clinton may be creating a backlash of sympathy for her. I know that I end up defending her against some of the more moronic attacks--and I don't even support her.

Anonymous said...

Oh hey, I'm not a fan either. But if she won the state, give her credit for winning, you know.

Women tend to be more critical of a woman who cries 'on the job' so to speak so really I don't think it would have helped her all that much with women really.

But really, do we want someone to end up being president because press bias created a backlash of sympathy for them?

David Terrenoire said...

90% of all reporting covers events, not ideas. Ideas are too hard and they take too much time to explore. Events, though, are easy and they bring their own pictures.

I'm fed up with all of it.

More music, less talk. That's me on '08.

Anonymous said...

Welcome to our wow Gold and store. We are specilized, professional and reliable website for selling and service. By the wow power leveling same token,we offer the best WoW service for our long-term and loyal customers You will find the benefits and powerleveling value we created different from other sites. As to most people, they are unwilling to spend most of the time grinding money for mounts or repair when they can purchase what they are badly need. The only way is to look for the best place to wow powerleveling buy cheap WOW gold. Yes! You find it here! Our WoW Gold supplying service has already accumulated a high reputation and credibility. We have plenty of Gold suppliers, which will guarantee our wow gold delivery instant. Actually, we have been getting tons of postive feedbacks from our loyal customers who really appreciate our service.

Anonymous said...

And because wow gold donations have already wow gold topped $5500 buy wow gold (as of this writing, they're at $7,420), buy wow goldshe's picking one cheap wow gold more name out cheap wow goldof the hat, to wow power levelingwin a lifetime wow power levelingsubscription. That's power leveling right -- donate, they are power leveling of the goldwin, and you'll buy wow goldnever have to cheap wow goldpay for WoW again.