Friday, November 10, 2006
vent: politics and media
What is with it? Yes, I vented to Kevin yesterday (and I say vent because I know I can't look at it without inserting a fair amount of personal bias).
We were talking about political media and how extreme it is. It is the reason (or a large part of the reason) that I'm not as politically minded as I once was, especially since I came to New York. I know it's not a personal thing, but I just hate it when people (including media, professors, classmates, people on the street) assume that just because you're in New York and you have higher education, that you must hate Bush and be a Democrat.
I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. What I am is a moderate. I don't hate Bush. I don't know Bush. I don't think anyone that I've heard say "I hate Bush" actually knows Bush. Kev and I talked about holding politicians, especially the President, to a higher standard than most people - he just doesn't have the leeway to mess up because of the greatness of his responsibilities and his position as a figurehead of our nation. A large part of it, Kevin pointed out, was also that the party in power will always be vilified just because they have power.
Will they, though? I believe that is in large part due to the media. We are not objective (I mean, seriously, that's the reason we write), but political writers get away with a lot (and I mean A LOT) more personal bias and editorializing than we'd ever let any straight news writer go. Why is that?
Part of that is because the readers let them. Politics, in an odd effort to equalize the voting population, has instead polarized it, each attacking the other reactively rather than proactively. As someone who has always sort of sat on the fence, it angers me that the media, of whom I hope to become a part of, is to blame for this. I know, it sounds trite, but why can't we just all get along?
Kevin, in his political science wisdom, explained to me the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives and why they will never understand each other. It lies in human nature. Conservatives believe that people are flawed and that social institutions are necessary to save us from ourselves. Liberals believe that people are blank slates molded by the worlds they grow up in, and we all start in the same place. While this explanation is all well and good, I don't think most people understand that when they choose to become liberal or conservative.
Growing up in a very conservative household in a relatively conservative Southern California county (one of the few left in the state), it's always been easy for me to see the conservative point of view (sharing a belief system with the majority of them makes it easy as well). But through my exposure in public schools, higher education and New York in general has given me an understanding of the liberal point of view as well. In my mind, I'm thinking (although in my mind it doesn't sound so egotistical), why can't people be more like me and understand each other? I have close friends that fall on both sides of the spectrum, and they all (although they haven't told me otherwise) respect me for my opinion even when I differ from them. How is it that you can understand when someone you know believes in something different from you but you close the doors on someone you don't know? Isn't everyone (or most people at least) just as nuanced and complex as your friend (or at least have the possibility to be?)
What brought all this on was Walter Shapiro (former USA Today political columnist and current Washington Bureau Chief of Salon.com) came to speak to our class today (his wife is our teacher). As someone who has spent so much time in Washington (he's been covering politics for over 30 years; the 2008 Presidential election with be the 8th presidential election he's covered), I expected a lot of the same old same old "hate Bush, vote Hillary" schpeal that you get thrown at you from all directions in New York. One of the things he spoke on was that all politicians, no matter how they come across in public, have complexities we do not see. A classmate immediately asked "If that's true, then what are Bush's complexities?" The room was abuzz for a moment in snickers, as if there could not possibly be a single one (thank goodness no one cracked a Texas joke or I would have been all over their ass).
Shapiro, who comes across as congenial and understanding, thought for a second and said, and I paraphrase, that some of the things George W. has done lately have surprised him, such as the recent firing of Rumsfeld and the not-so-recent appointment of Josh Bolten as his Chief of Staff. His overall assessment: Bush has learned a great deal during his time in office, and he has begun applying some of it. Not a positive review, not a negative review. Shapiro does not know Bush personally, but as a well-established and respected political writer, I was so relieved that he didn't jump to an extreme conclusion.
Thus goes back to the perils and pitfalls of journalism school and the future of political journalism. The types of people that go to journalism school tend to be the types with very firm beliefs in one way or another. Those that aren't so swayed usually don't want to write on those topics (aka myself). And the extremists end up being the ones who apply to and end up writing about topics such as politics. But through my two classes (which are insanely different even in the way they are alike), there are two outlets for covering politics - one for pop culture (a la Rolling Stone and Esquire) and one for Washington (a la Wall Street Journal and USA Today). The amount of editorializing and bias that goes into a pop-political article is usually more than goes into a political news story. Unfortunately, most people would rather read a Rolling Stone than a Washington Post (although I don't know why - I've never gotten through a whole issue of that cumbersomely large magazine - it doesn't fit anywhere!).
Unfortunately, it seems the trend is not going anywhere anytime soon. I can say without a doubt that NYU is definitely honing a new generation of these pop-politicos to fuel the biased fire. What will be interesting to see after Tuesday's election is if the critics will begin to feed on the now-majority Democrats as they rule Congress. It was easy to vilify the party in power when there was just one target - how do you even it out when the power is distributed between more than one party?
We were talking about political media and how extreme it is. It is the reason (or a large part of the reason) that I'm not as politically minded as I once was, especially since I came to New York. I know it's not a personal thing, but I just hate it when people (including media, professors, classmates, people on the street) assume that just because you're in New York and you have higher education, that you must hate Bush and be a Democrat.
I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. What I am is a moderate. I don't hate Bush. I don't know Bush. I don't think anyone that I've heard say "I hate Bush" actually knows Bush. Kev and I talked about holding politicians, especially the President, to a higher standard than most people - he just doesn't have the leeway to mess up because of the greatness of his responsibilities and his position as a figurehead of our nation. A large part of it, Kevin pointed out, was also that the party in power will always be vilified just because they have power.
Will they, though? I believe that is in large part due to the media. We are not objective (I mean, seriously, that's the reason we write), but political writers get away with a lot (and I mean A LOT) more personal bias and editorializing than we'd ever let any straight news writer go. Why is that?
Part of that is because the readers let them. Politics, in an odd effort to equalize the voting population, has instead polarized it, each attacking the other reactively rather than proactively. As someone who has always sort of sat on the fence, it angers me that the media, of whom I hope to become a part of, is to blame for this. I know, it sounds trite, but why can't we just all get along?
Kevin, in his political science wisdom, explained to me the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives and why they will never understand each other. It lies in human nature. Conservatives believe that people are flawed and that social institutions are necessary to save us from ourselves. Liberals believe that people are blank slates molded by the worlds they grow up in, and we all start in the same place. While this explanation is all well and good, I don't think most people understand that when they choose to become liberal or conservative.
Growing up in a very conservative household in a relatively conservative Southern California county (one of the few left in the state), it's always been easy for me to see the conservative point of view (sharing a belief system with the majority of them makes it easy as well). But through my exposure in public schools, higher education and New York in general has given me an understanding of the liberal point of view as well. In my mind, I'm thinking (although in my mind it doesn't sound so egotistical), why can't people be more like me and understand each other? I have close friends that fall on both sides of the spectrum, and they all (although they haven't told me otherwise) respect me for my opinion even when I differ from them. How is it that you can understand when someone you know believes in something different from you but you close the doors on someone you don't know? Isn't everyone (or most people at least) just as nuanced and complex as your friend (or at least have the possibility to be?)
What brought all this on was Walter Shapiro (former USA Today political columnist and current Washington Bureau Chief of Salon.com) came to speak to our class today (his wife is our teacher). As someone who has spent so much time in Washington (he's been covering politics for over 30 years; the 2008 Presidential election with be the 8th presidential election he's covered), I expected a lot of the same old same old "hate Bush, vote Hillary" schpeal that you get thrown at you from all directions in New York. One of the things he spoke on was that all politicians, no matter how they come across in public, have complexities we do not see. A classmate immediately asked "If that's true, then what are Bush's complexities?" The room was abuzz for a moment in snickers, as if there could not possibly be a single one (thank goodness no one cracked a Texas joke or I would have been all over their ass).
Shapiro, who comes across as congenial and understanding, thought for a second and said, and I paraphrase, that some of the things George W. has done lately have surprised him, such as the recent firing of Rumsfeld and the not-so-recent appointment of Josh Bolten as his Chief of Staff. His overall assessment: Bush has learned a great deal during his time in office, and he has begun applying some of it. Not a positive review, not a negative review. Shapiro does not know Bush personally, but as a well-established and respected political writer, I was so relieved that he didn't jump to an extreme conclusion.
Thus goes back to the perils and pitfalls of journalism school and the future of political journalism. The types of people that go to journalism school tend to be the types with very firm beliefs in one way or another. Those that aren't so swayed usually don't want to write on those topics (aka myself). And the extremists end up being the ones who apply to and end up writing about topics such as politics. But through my two classes (which are insanely different even in the way they are alike), there are two outlets for covering politics - one for pop culture (a la Rolling Stone and Esquire) and one for Washington (a la Wall Street Journal and USA Today). The amount of editorializing and bias that goes into a pop-political article is usually more than goes into a political news story. Unfortunately, most people would rather read a Rolling Stone than a Washington Post (although I don't know why - I've never gotten through a whole issue of that cumbersomely large magazine - it doesn't fit anywhere!).
Unfortunately, it seems the trend is not going anywhere anytime soon. I can say without a doubt that NYU is definitely honing a new generation of these pop-politicos to fuel the biased fire. What will be interesting to see after Tuesday's election is if the critics will begin to feed on the now-majority Democrats as they rule Congress. It was easy to vilify the party in power when there was just one target - how do you even it out when the power is distributed between more than one party?
# posted by ange : 9:52 AM
Comments:
<< Home
it won't let me! stupid me forgot to activate comment moderation, and now that i did, it won't let me go back and delete. :(
lol silly. and if only there was a way you could allow certain commentators witout needing to approve the comments first. every few weeks i go thru your site and leave a buncha comments. it's stupid too because they don't show the date of the comments.
<< Home
Post a Comment