|
I recently read In the Eagle's Shadow: Why America Fascinates and Infuriates the World by Mark Hertsgaard. In the book, Hertsgaard devotes a good portion to talking about our "court press" here in the US, and how a good part of the rest of the world is amazed at how truly poor our press coverage of politics really is.
Hertsgaard also wrote a book on the press and the Reagan Presidency, On Bended Knee. I haven't yet read it, but the fact that he's delved into this topic before does lend a bit of credibility to his analysis.
Basically, Hertsgaard says that mainstream media discussion of politics exists totally and completely within parameters dictated by the Beltway scene -- i.e., Democrats represent the "left", and Republicans represent the "right". Now, the implications for excluded viewpoints in this arrangement should be plain to see. But, perhaps even more telling, is the way that Hertsgaard takes this one step further.
If the Democrats and Republicans dictate the realm of political coverage by the press, they also help determine the MANNER in which politics is covered. If the party out of power demonstrates a stiff opposition, and doesn't shy away from attacking the party in power, then media coverage will be critical -- because that is the parameter of debate being defined within the political scene. Conversely, if the opposition party is timid and/or largely silent, then the media coverage of the party in power will be largely uncritical.
To support this argument, Hertsgaard looks at the way that many Democrats went along with Reagan's policies during the 1980's, and how the press was largely uncritical of him. During the 1990's, Clinton faced a stiff and determined Republican opposition, so media coverage of him was less glowing. And we all know how many Democrats have gone out of their way to voice their support for the President while still attempting to put up some kind of "opposition" to him, which has resulted in a less-than-critical press coverage. It's also interesting to think about those occasions in which the Democrats actually voiced loud criticism of the Bush Administration, that the media actually DID jump on it, if only for the amount of time that the mini-scandal was pressed by the Democrats.
In short, it seems that Democratic politicians' efforts to "get along" in Washington could be cutting their throats on two levels. First, it prevents them from producing a compelling ALTERNATIVE narrative to what the Republicans are offering; and second, it actually influences media coverage to be even LESS critical of the Republican administration.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
