I just Googled "Scott McClelland's book" and got 621,000 references. Then I Googled "candidates unified on Darfur," which produced just 94,300. Even then, a quick look at the Darfur sightings shows that most do not actually refer to the recent agreement among Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama to unite in support of the people of Darfur.
Let's compare these two stories:
The former has no real news value at all. It’s a small story about a minor, slightly dim, political functionary coming out publically against his bosses. If it weren’t for the fact that 70% of the country hates his bosses it would be no story at all.
On the other hand, the candidate’s Darfur agreement relates to a daily struggle of life and death by some of the most pathetically abused people on God’s earth, who are being hunted down and murdered like dogs by Arab mercenaries on horseback. That alone should make it a better story.
But on top of that, we have the three remaining candidates for the White House publically agreeing on something, (can anyone remember anything similar happening -- ever?), and their agreement takes the form of a moral commitment. How often do politicians do that?
And yet the Darfur story came and went in a day, while Matt Lauer and Keith Olbermann and the rest of them will be bloviating about the McClelland book and interviewing C-list politicos for their “analysis” for weeks to come.
Sometimes I think television intentionally focuses on the least important issues available to them at any given time.
Here’s a short video about the joint agreement from a very effective organization. They make it very easy to get your voice heard in case you want to participate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Just another scenario elucidating that life is not fair. Most people don't have a need to cultivate empathy for distant suffering. We are not as moral as we would like to believe.
As to SM's book. Let us not underestimate the depth of rage of a sizable portion of the American people over the problems this country has and how we acquired them.
As a culture we've never given two hoots for what happens outside our borders unless we can ridicule it or make domestic political hay out of it. Darfur provides neither so people don't care and get really annoyed when it is brought into their living rooms via the news media.
I agree with Hank regarding McClellan's book. Also, it provides me with the real reason these guys wanted to go into Iraq. I knew it wasn't WMD. It looks like they had the cracker jack idea that they could force American style democracy down the throats of an oppressed people with an M-16. Coercive democracy they called it. Great idea!
You two would make good politicians; you answer the question you want, not the one asked, which is, “which is more important?” Shouldn’t media – even television – cover what’s most important? Or are you OK with them using the air space you own, to manufacture the cheapest possible audience, while causing the least offense to the fewest people, so they can sell you cell service, credit cards and prescription drugs?
I'll take that as a compliment. "Important" is a relative word. Important to who? Important when?
Should the ongoing trajedy of Darfur get significant airtime? Of course it should. Should it trump domestic political affairs in an election year that could prove to be the most significant in decades? Debatable but I think not. Is the McClellan book being overblown? I think we all know the answer to that.
It's understandable that MSNBC and NBC would have wall to wall coverage because they the exclusive interview with McClellan. No wonder the white came out two weeks ago critical of NBC. They knew this was coming decided to launch a preemptive strike.
The sad fact is that very few people care about Darfur and couldn't find sudan on a map of Africa if there was a arrown pointing to Khartoum with a label that said "This is in Sudan"! New outlets know this and also know that if they try to feed it to Americans, the public won't watch it.
The “important story” isn’t Darfur (although it should be). It is that there is an issue so clear-cut that all three candidates can agree on a common policy. Please name one other example like that. If they can agree on something, wouldn’t it be interesting to know how that process worked and what factors allowed them to come together, in hopes there are similar opportunities to come together? Not to TV. They’d rather give us the meaningless soap opera of one more Washington insider spilling their guts for 30 pieces of silver telling the story of how they’ve given us all a good screwing during their years in government.
Darfur vs SM.
OK you brought it up...what are we to do in Darfur?
Why didn't we do so in Cambodia?
You ask the question and I am aking for an answer.
You bring the question but no answer. Sorry bro
Does anybody out there feel a burning need to excoriate Scott for his lack of loyalism? I had to ask as the debate is hardly lively. Surely we have someone out there who would like to bop birdman and me over the snout.
Neither story is about man bites dog. Darfur could be a bottomless pit for why our world is flawed. It is the more important story. However, it doesn't sizzle. And, as Spiro Agnew once said, "If you've been to one ghetto, you've been to them all."
Three candidate agreeing on something is "man bites dog." But again, the question isn't about Darfur or the book, it's about how the agenda is set. Do you feel that television news cares what's important, or just what will catch the most eyeballs? Does it matter to you?
The unified stand on Darfur by all three candidates is far more newsworthy. Unfortunately, the statement (as indicated in the press release)is largely symbolic and proposes no congressional initiatives. It is meant to pressure the Sudanese government --which we all know means bupkis!!
A sitting president and three senators all acknowledge that genocide is taking place. Is there a plan in place to try to stop this? Will the people who want to pull out immediately in Iraq understand they will be promoting the same kind of genocide if we don’t make sure the government there is stable before we leave? Will the candidates send more of our troops into Sudan to stop the genocide if elected? What will the liberals who are demanding immediate pullout in Iraq say about our troops being sent to Sudan? I think this position is worthy of some attention…lets see what their positions really are…who is willing to put our troops and our money where their mouths are? If they aren’t willing to do anything about it, then they are just blowing hot air yet again. If they mean it, then I would like to see some sort of declaration drafted in Congress and sent to the President…lets see what they’re made of.
And just maybe the media looked a little deeper this time and saw how empty this statement is and opted for the more meaty give/take of the McClellan piece.
Good suggestions AY. Unfortunately, we're all too busy wondering why W., relaxing on AF1, couldn't remember if he'd ever done coke.
Religion may once have been the opiate of the masses, but today it is certainly the telly.
Getting three disparate politicians to agree on something is indeed news. I'll they wouldn't have agreed if they knew the others were saying the same thing. Regardless, I can't help but think this is empty rhetoric with no real actiion behind it. They're just getting their genocide tickets punched before they move on to more important stuff like abortion and gay marriage.
You could be right, but none of us are mindreaders and the act of agreement has value in and of itself, I believe. It's a small step towards thawing a climate frozen in perpetual disagreement between the parties.
I know I'm late to this discussion but I'm an irregular blogger.
Fascinating, a discussion of newsworthiness as a driver of stories covered on television.
If it's on television it's entertainment. Period. The product they sell is audience. Delivering audience is the sole basis for all editorial decisions. The other claims are bullshit.
"Amusing Ourselves to Death: Political Discourse in the Age of Show Business." It's a good book by Neil Postman. But the title pretty much covers it.
I have to agree. I mean, I love the media and the work that journalists do but sometimes there are obvious biases.
Post a Comment