The Shirley Sherrod case (in which a video was edited to make a USDA official appear racist, when she was not) is yet another episode of media chicanery and incompetence; for the better part of a week it distracted the country from policy debates that really matter. The rightwing hacks and enablers who routinely perpetrate these frauds got exactly what they wanted: the more time the country spends on sideshows, the less attention is paid to the real issues.
There’s a fair amount of introspection going on about what brought the media to the point where hatchet jobs from disreputable sources can hijack the news cycle (the Obama Administration itself fell victim, in a disgraceful way). Even many of the media’s most vocal defenders (e.g., Mark Halperin) admit that something is terribly wrong.
And there is.
But I doubt whether the media will learn the most important lesson. What ails them most is not that they fall victim now and them to a con artist; what ails them is the political paradigm through which they view virtually everything. The real trouble is that all news stories are instantly treated as Democrats v. Republicans and left v. right, always with a nod to where “centrists”, “moderates”, or “independents” lie.
This lens does more to distort than illuminate; politics should be secondary to the larger issues and ideas. America is facing tremendous challenges: a slow recovery with high unemployment, skyrocketing deficits, a health care crisis, two ongoing wars and terrorist threats, potentially catastrophic climate change and environmental degradation, and an illegal immigrant population that’s now over twelve million.
The media should focus on these issues, and offer the public the differing views on how to address them—the policies, regulations, and laws they would entail, and the potential pros and cons of the different approaches. Only after laying out the issues should politics enter the equation.
For example, on deficits, the two ways to address the issue are raising taxes or cutting spending. If the media outlined the different combinations of these strategies, and what they would mean for individual Americans, it would be a great service: people could form an opinion on the substance of the issues, ahead of the political implications. Of course, where the parties stand will ultimately be a big part of any policy story—but party stances should not top the discussion. The public needs to be educated and informed first, and then figure out which party is most closely aligned with their views.
The way the media currently works, everything is backwards. In print and on-air, writers and talking heads focus on the political battles before the substance is even close to clear. This confuses the public, which understandably reverts to simply following their ideological predispositions (which in turn further polarizes the nation, and dumbs-down the discourse).
When issues advance or stall in the political process, the media should make clear who is responsible. This will help voters clearly link policy outcomes to specific politicians. For example: when financial reform passes with next to no Republican support, headlines should make that clear; when unemployment benefits are blocked by the GOP, the headlines shouldn’t say “Congress fails to pass unemployment benefits extension”.
And please, no more discussions of how many Americans self-identify as “conservative” or “liberal”; these definitions are extremely vague and imprecise, and people often hold contradictory views on many topics that render these labels meaningless (i.e. wanting lower taxes but increased government spending, or increased personal freedom but the ability to restrict the rights of groups they don’t like).
The media has forgotten that political victories are ultimately meaningless and only policy victories matter. Social Security or tax cuts or gay rights matter because of their impact on people, not because they score points for one party or the other. Being fair and balanced doesn’t mean giving equal weight to both parties, it means describing objectively the costs and benefits of different policies and who stands to gain and lose. This crucial distinction has been lost in our media culture.
VoR prides itself on being a non-partisan forum, which may surprise some because of the strong stances I often take for the Democratic Party over the GOP. But if tomorrow the Republicans started representing just, fair, and reasonable policies, I would switch my allegiance in a heartbeat. Political labels mean nothing to me; they are important only with regards to policy goals.
If the media could finally recognize this, it would bring much greater clarity to the issues and lead to a much better-informed citizenry.
Jason Scorse