When Coverage Makes Things Worse

This isn't really all that surprising--people are angry at Congress because they're finding out something about how politics runs but it isn't necessarily an accurate picture.

updated: For a lot of reasons, I've been watching way too much cable news throughout the day and evening in recent years.  It's hard to say which is the worst at any given moment because the focus is entirely on the day to day grind of national politics, fed by people who have deep roots in the process and agendas they want to promote. And it doesn't help that the networks insist on covering everything political as if it were the Super Bowl.  Not everything is a game; not everything should be covered as if it were.
 I never would have thought, 10 years ago, that there was the chance that coverage might actually make things worse. But it has. Because it's crappy coverage.  Is it not reasonable to believe that endless appearances by people who, at worst, are clearly lying, and at best, giving a mighty spin to events, eventually turn people off, who walk away shouting a pox on all their houses?

Putting on the BBC shows just how bad our cable news shows are: on more than one occasion, I've found myself caught up listening to lengthy discussions about some matter in the UK that holds no interest to me personally, just because it's such a pleasant surprise to listen to informed people who are allowed to finish a sentence. 

It's hard to believe how tone deaf the US cable operations are. Have you seen the latest Chris Matthews' video where he brags about the joy he takes in catching people fibbing, especially if they've fibbed to others? As if Matthews' ego is what matters.  And while we're at it, I really wish MSNBC and Fox show hosts would stop attacking each other. Who cares?

As newspaper coverage diminishes with budget cutbacks, we are left with less and less actual news and are treated to things like watching George Stephanopoulos, who held out before going to Good Morning America so he could bring even more so-called political coverage to the show, demeaning himself by discussing whether young girls should wear high heels.

Too Much

I've been engaged in a discussion this morning with friend and former colleague Jordan Rau about the need for, and content of, Sept.11 anniversary stories. I'm of the mind that we need to have them, though they should focus less on trite, cheap emotionalism.

Someone else weighed in and said that mourning should private. I seriously disagree with that since there couldn't have been a more public death for so many, and the attack was aimed at all of us as a country. There's a reason for Memorial Day, even though it's turned into a three-day weekend beach-and-barbecue event for so many, though not all. There's nothing private at all about Sept.11. Shortly after the attacks, I started seeing references from people in the West to "the attacks on the East Coast" and thought that was an oddly parochial view. I still think so. As long as I live, I will think of that day, the lives lost and the awful effects on our political culture and its militarizing effects. (Take a look at how some police units look like soldiers some time.)

As I drive around Long Island, with many streets and parks named for dead firefighters, police officers and office workers, I know that memory will live on in both our public and private lives.

That said, the day brings us to another kind of story floating around Facebook, and that is the question of children and how they get to school, more often eschewing walking for buses. At some point, and not in a way that we mention it, dismiss it and move on, we in the media have to figure out and take responsibility for our own fear-mongering. It isn't enough to mention that parents' fears are exaggerated, given the numbers, and then go right back to leading the broadcast or the newspaper with the latest tidbit of information that little Michelle is still missing. (My apologies to all little Michelles who ARE still missing.) We spread fear. We alter reality. We need to stop, just as the endless number of crime dramas, prison "documentaries," and other nonsense that floods the airwaves every night exaggerates the crime rate. Several years ago, a then-thriving newspaper I worked for did a 13-part series about the area partially titled "The Fear and the Facts." Distilled, the series could be summed up this way: It ain't nearly as bad as you think.

So why do people overestimate the chances that they or their children will become crime victims? Who is responsible for that? We are. It doesn't even seem driven by the pursuit of a good story. It's just become reactive and easy to do.

And If You Don't Pay Your Bill...

Remember the quaint old days when people were worried about a company owning two newspapers in the same market?

These days, my local newspaper, and TV, phone and internet service are all owned/provided by one company. Which also owns several local sports teams and major venues.

It's hard to complain about someone having a newspaper and two stations in the same general market when there are at least some options. Even if it is Rupert Murdoch.

BBC Looks at Numbers

The BBC has been running a good series on numbers:
Surveys

Counting

Percentages

Averages

Causation


Others have done good work too; it's just nice to have a reminder, given some of the bad election-related numbers that are floating around out there. I have been intrigued this week by the way post-convention numbers for Obama have been represented. He got a big bounce. No, he didn't. All based on how the numbers are toted up.

And on a tangential note, wouldn't it be nice if the cable news networks actually did some, you know, news, especially in the mornings and evenings, instead of running nothing but blather, blather, blather on politics?
Update: and of course, there's the moment when blather turns INTO news, as when Republicans Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy forget that the mics are still on.


hat/tip/ TalkingPointsMemo