The press and the missing point of view

California Moderates (CM) is generally critical of the mainstream press, in large part for doing a poor job of informing the public. See, e.g., the comments at the bottom of each CM page. CM has argued that the pragmatic point of view is usually missing from political discourse. The press bears much, but not all, of the responsibility for that.

There are reasons for the press' failure on this point. Consciously or not, the press is sometimes hostile to pragmatism probably because it makes for bad entertainment for one reason or another, e.g., its boring (loses audience share) or offends the audience and/or advertisers (loses audience share and/or revenue). As argued here before, pragmatism means being realistic and unspun reality often (usually?) undermines people's beliefs/ideology. That's no fun. Given our standard universe consisting of three points, liberal, conservative and compromise, it is likely the press doesn't recognize that a fourth point of view (pragmatism) can even exist.

 Spiral galaxy NCG 2683

Hubble space telescope photo

An example came up yesterday on a program that aired on POTUS called Politics Straight Up. It was a bunch of reporters chatting live in a noisy crowded bar called the Truman Lounge (at the National Press Club) and drinking vodka tonics, or whatever. A truly strange venue for a political talk show. Anyway, two polls (poll 1, poll 2) suggesting that most Americans believe that the supreme court will decide the Obamacare case based on their politics, and not on the law came up as a topic for discussion. Not surprisingly, the scintillating reporters/commentators expressed varying degrees of sadness/distress that so many Americans were so cynical as to believe that the supreme court would put partisan politics above the law.

Cynical?

Hm. Cynical. Really? Is it cynical to believe that not only are democratic and republican presidents constrained to nominate judges in their respective parties, they must pick nominees that have to pass all sorts of political tests to even be considered. Can anyone imagine a republican president nominating the most brilliant jurist ever who just happened to be a pro-abortion liberal? Of course not. Maybe Americans think that because selecting supreme court justices and all other federal judges is political, their decisions will generally be political. Is that cynicism or pragmatic realism?  At the least, the logic of calling the supreme court a political institution is crystal clear.

Dubai at night from low earth orbit

Or naive?

Maybe Americans are not cynical. Maybe Americans are being realistic about this and the press is naive and/or co-opted into the standard three-point political universe. The press is usually content with having the liberal battle the conservative and then walk smugly away from the usually uninformative slugfest (spinfest, actually) with the feeling that the audience has been well-informed and well-served. That's a load of rot. That's not a competition of ideas in the marketplace, which is dead in American politics - its a competition between spinning spinners, a/k/a/ lying liars (see, e.g., FactCheck.org for current spinner spin on energy). Unless its by sheer accident, neither the liberal nor the conservative represents unspun pragmatic reality. They offer reality more or less twisted by their ideological and/or personal-interest straight jackets.

Its not just politicians: Of course, special interests spin as needed to fit whatever it is they need to do to maintain their revenue streams, see, e.g., the FactCheck.org link. If reality works for them they will take it but if not, which is usually the case, they won't. In a sick way, that's being pragmatic.

Politician's nest

RINOS, DINOS and outcasts

Maybe the press can't see reality for what it is because it flies in the face of how they have to see the world. They have to survive and succeed in a highly competitive world. Its not the case that press people are stupid. Most of them are very smart and articulate. Something else is going on. Maybe the constraints the press operates under, having to offer infotainment without offending the target audience or advertisers constrains the way they have to see the world. Is any of that such a stretch? In a way, press constraints are a lot like a political or religious ideology - you have to accept it or get kicked out of the herd.

So, which is it? Americans are cynical, the press has some issues it needs to confront, both or neither? CM thinks that the press has some reality check type issues to face. But, you will decide for yourself.