The Media in a Nutshell

Years ago, a mild mannered reporter for a large metropolitan paper spoke to me (and hundreds of others) about the press. He started his discussion by talking about how journalists are lazy, undisciplined, biased, sloppy and a few other choice adjectives. He then paused. Someone from the back said, "Keep going."

Let me keep going.

I swore off network news years ago. It wasn't due to any perception of bias. (It was there; it was less of an issue over the fact that a nightly broacast was 1/3 actual news and 2/3 features. After a while, one tires of hearing the same story about a miracle drug that is 5-10 years from being marketed.)

I hardly read the papers. Growing up, I read the New York Daily News religiously. The poor executives at the NYDN don't know what they are marketing -- a serious city paper or something to rival a Fleet Street rag. The editorials are written as if they are sermons from the mount while page 3 has the lastest fashion trends. Curiously, as the NYDN becomes silly, the New York Post has become, well, more serious. Worst yet, it's a better read. The NYDN may have several columnists but they all say the same thing.

Back in the day, I craved the Sunday talk shows. Granted it was a little more than recycled sound bites but it was interesting nonetheless.

However, I have come to the conclusion that the media no longer cares about the audience or more precisely -- me. (Plunging ratings and circulation numbers don't happen in a vacuum.) No, rather they are more concerned about keeping themselves amused. Harp on McCain and Palin's supposed gaffes; ignore the Iraq War, it's going too well; skimp on the coverage that blames the liberals for their role in the economic mess. You get the idea.

Moreover, everyone thinks I'm entitled to their opinion. I used to read Mike Lupica for sports -- not to bash Bush. I read Mens Health for fitness tips; not to read about how swell Obama is; and there's no end to Fox-bashing throughout the New York Times. Maybe there is an audience for this type of thing -- it's certainly not me.

Take MSNBC and Newsweek. Earlier today, the morning news host interviewed a junior reporter about the magazine's latest presidential poll. Obama is leading by 13 or so points. Both the host and the reporter were at pains to mention that this poll was consistent with a host of others. (Well, that was actual news to me.)

The narrative that they want to believe is that Obama will win (and more importantly signify a rejection of Bush -- whether that's important or not, I will defer to posterity).

If they wanted to do the audience a service -- then they would explain the volatility of the polls. Furthermore, they would have reminded the audience that the polls are a snapshot in time and are not stone cold locks regarding who is going to win. (Remember Obama's victory in New Hampshire? Neither do I but it was a stone cold lock.)

Like sports fans who are happy to see their football team with a big lead at the end of the third quarter, they just rejoiced about how Obama is coasting to victory.

Click.