MEDIA AWARENESS

One sure sign that the primaries are into their Awareness moments is that the quality of the media coverage itself becomes a major issue. The media is, after all, how we become aware of the facts we need to know to vote intelligently. When we begin to become aware of how we become aware, we are becoming really aware.

When a sketch on Saturday Night Live about a fictional debate becomes an issue in the real debate in Ohio that follows it, and then Hillary follows that by going on SNL herself and taking a bow, the issue of media coverage is red hot.

Right on cue Newsweek has come out with a long article answering the question “Is the Media Biased?” You can read it here but I’ll save you the time: Yes, the media is biased. No, there is nothing anyone can do about it, and it doesn’t really matter that much anyway because most reporters aren’t politically biased they are just vacuous airheads concerned with causing trouble, getting ratings and looking good, and isn’t that sort of cute and special?

The problem for the Dems is that there are two flavors of awareness moments, and it is unclear which is fast approaching. One – vastly preferable – is the “Trust the force, Luke” moment when the hero realizes what to do to prevail. (Maybe Obama is right and Dems have to think outside their usual party-line political box). But the other type of awareness is the Wylie Coyote moment when you realize you have just run off the cliff and there is no solid ground under you at all. (Maybe Hillary is right and Obama’s new ideas are nothing but hot air). Paul Krugman deals with this dilemma in his piece in the Times which IS worth a read.

Facts wrapped in emotions are the essence of stories, and no one on the political beat works that alchemy better than the Sultan of Shrill.

Comments

[Cam Beck]

Sometimes it's useful to also examine the stories your opponents are telling:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/16066877.html