So I've read yet another "poll" story about the presidential race. I know the candidates have posted position papers and statements on their web sites. Would it be too much to ask our "daily" media to talk about that stuff occasionally?
Actually, it would. Positions tend to stay stable - "on message" is the term. Daily "news" can be defined as "what is different than yesterday." Therefore, the different, no matter how trivial, takes precedence over further analysis of what we already "know."
Besides, each candidate has an economic plan they say will work. They've each got a mountain of experts who say the plan will work. I'm supposed to trust a journalist who went into journalism because "there's no math in it" to tell me which of the competing economic proposals has the best shot at working?
We're so screwed.
I get students who are from other countries from time to time, and they tend to monopolize my classroom discussions about U.S. journalism. As one woman exclaimed this week, "You've given up the right to have any real information from the news!"
"Yeah," I told her. "But at least we all know who's banging Jennifer Aniston."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment