Reply #2: May I suggest you read the editorial. Unfortunately, all people care is to know whether

[Mass]

Gore attacks Obama or not. Certainly, the media has done its job well. They dont want to talk about issues, so they talk about a supposed conflict. And everybody follows without a gram of critical mind. These are days like that that DU/GDP drives me crazy. You could think issues do not matter, and for many, they do not. It is all about the horse race. So, if you have not read it, read Gore's column.

And for some perspective on this, here is one of Fallows' latest post about the media, and about this column in particular.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/from-the-archives-why-we-hate-the-media/240854/

UPDATE: If someone were starting on a mid-2011 update, an item from today's news could be a case study. Al Gore's new essay in Rolling Stone, about impending climate disasters, is mainly about the failure of the media to direct adequate attention to the issue, and to call out paid propagandists and discredited phony scientists. That's where the essay starts, and what it covers in its first 5,000 words. The second part, less than half as long, and much more hedged in its judgment, is about the Obama Administration's faltering approach on climate change. But of course the immediate press presentation on the essays has been all "OMG Gore attacks Obama!" For instance at Slate,* TPM, NY Mag, the AP, and the Atlantic's own Wire site.

(Example of the hedged judgment: "In spite of these obstacles , President Obama included significant climate-friendly initiatives in the economic stimulus package he presented to Congress during his first month in office. ... But in spite of these and other achievements, President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change.")

Yes, the news value here is Gore-v-Obama; yes, that's part of the story. But the theme I tried to lay out in that essay is that the media's all-consuming interest in the "how" and "who's ahead" of politics, and "oh God this is boring" disdain for the "what" and "why" of public issues, has all sorts of ugly consequences. It makes the public think that politics is not for them unless they love the insider game; it makes the "what" and "why" of public issues indeed boring and unapproachable; and as a consequence of the latter, it makes the public stupider than it needs to be about the what and why.

The reaction to Gore's essay illustrates the pattern: from his point of view, it's one more (earnest) attempt to say "Hey, listen up about this problem!" As conveyed by the press, it's one more skirmish on the "liberals don't like Obama" front, and one more illustration of the eyes-glazing-over trivia and details about melting icebergs and scientific disputes.

Once again, we follow the media where they want us to go. Not talking about you, karyn, but about all of us (blogs and media) at one time or another.Follow the media at your own risk.