Who needs a convention?
I’m amused at the vision of 15,000 journalists sitting with their thumbs up their asses in St. Paul yesterday with nothing to type while Gustav filled cable news. Without cable news, of course, there is no need to have a convention. Cable news is their raison d’être. That the Republicans can truncate their convention and the campaign still goes on is the best proof that conventions are meaningless and thus that journalists are wasting their time covering them.
That was the topic of my Guardian column this week, where I took the argument to the next level and said convention coverage is a symptom of another problem in journalism: We cover politics too much. Politics is the opiate of of journalism and it’s time to go to rehab. Snippet:
I’m sad to see that hundreds of bloggers have been co-opted to give more attention to these free adverts for the parties. I wish they found their own way and hadn’t joined the press mob. They, too, want to feel important. Like journalists, they want to be on the inside. But that’s not where either should want to be. I saw a party official crow that bloggers were just another means to get a message out. They’re being used.
The attention given to the conventions and campaigns is symptomatic of a worse journalistic disease: we over-cover politics and under-cover the actions of our governments. We over-cover politicians and under-cover the lives and needs of citizens. . . .
We assume that covering politics is high public service. But too often it amounts to covering celebrity, except that political stars have less talent and worse wardrobes than real stars. There’s little difference between camping out at the end of Joe Biden’s driveway, as the press did, to learn nothing after Barack Obama picked him as his running mate, and staking out Britney Spears when she heads out for burgers. At least she may do something unpredictable.
We don’t need the press to tell us what the politicians say; we can watch it ourselves on the web. We don’t need pundits to tell us what to think; we can blather as they do on our blogs. The rise of mass media - primetime TV - ensured that conventions would never surprise again: they became free commercials. The internet then took away the last reasons to devote journalistic resources to the events - there’s nothing we can’t see and judge on our own.
This is all the worse in the US since our elections never end, and we have a half-dozen networks with hours to fill and hundreds of newspapers that apparently still have a few too many people with not enough to do. But, anywhere, it’s worth asking whether we spend too much covering politics and too little covering the rest of life.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 am
Politics has been described as “show business for the ugly” We need to pay attention to what our leaders do (government) rather than what they say (politics)
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:13 am
Jeff:
Another excellent point. Newspaper management never was able to look beyond the obvious. Editors always promoted the reporters who most resembled them and their career path.
No need to think differently since newspapers will always be there, right? Now they think salvation is just putting information on the web.
Meanwhile new browsers, mobile (iPhone) technology and experts in all fields can provide readers with more insight for making better choices.
Most newspapers are waiting to copy someone who has a little success rather than take a risk. Which takes us back to my first paragraph.
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:59 am
It’s cheaper to put on some talking heads and have them pontificate than it is to keep a staff of investigative reporters digging for stores that may take months to complete.
What are the “news” networks supposed to do in the meantime?
One thing to notice about the stories on the PBS show “Frontline” is how many reporters and how many months (years in some cases) were invested until the stories were published.
The same forces have produced game shows, Oprah-type shows and “reality” TV instead of scripted drama. A shrinking audience and increased competition from more stations and alternative media means less revenue, so less spent on production.
In spite of your faith in technology, there is a difference between citizen journalism via cell phone of events and investigative reporting. If anything the scandals of the past eight years should remind people of the need to have real reporters keeping tabs on what government is doing.
A free press may be the prerequisite for democracy, but it is not sufficient if it isn’t also functional
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:01 am
The GOP’s scrambling to put out the Palin pregnancy fire takes media precedent over the destruction of New Orleans. And I bet when they are ready to get to the story, Britney Spears will try to feed her child Drano and UH-OH! New Breaking News. It’s a shame. A harsh reality, mind you, but still a shame.
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:02 am
And, it should read, “SO, the . . .” Stupid me.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:56 am
I can understand why the TV networks send their people. Television is made for mindless blather. There are hours to fill and some idiot would sit there blabbing the same things over and over if they didn’t have ridiculously long things like conventions on which to let the cameras roll.
The number of print journalists at these ridiculous events is what makes no sense. I don’t like AP, but their account of the convention — while not brilliant — will probably deliver all of the necessary information. Their pictures — while not amazing — will probably capture the flavor of the event. So why do so many newspapers (many of which are in financial trouble and laying off people from their editorial staffs) feel it is so important to have their own people there? Editors seem to believe they will no longer be important, their paper no longer relevant, if they don’t send a “team” to the conventions and other big events. I would argue just the opposite. Wasting resources on such things is almost certainly going to make the paper less important and less relevant to the people who matter most. Readers.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
Jeff: I think, in a way, that we’re all guilty of it in a sense. Punditry online has changed a lot since I started writing online back in 2003. The difference between 2003 and 2001 is even more stark. As more and more folks add to the noise, the traditional media outlets somehow feel compelled to match it.
Politics isn’t just the opiate of journalism. It has become the opiate for the masses: a means for someone to try to show his is the most clever voice in a room the size of the planet with as many people there too.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Look at it this way, in every hurricane cloud there’s a silver lining. The GOP convention will be mercifully shorter. Not just for the journalists wasting their time on the redundant coverage, but for poor John McCain who must have a pretty serious hangover after drinking in all of the fallout from his poorly thought-out choice for veep.
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I’m afraid the “We” you refer to in your second to last paragraph is not the majority in this country, at least not in the city I come from. While you can see politicians speak on the Web and make your own judgments thereafter, I believe many people benefit from the mass media you mention. These are the people that hardly pick up a newspaper and seldom use the Internet as a resource for news. These are many of the middle-class people I know and have grown up with. So while the “we” you refer to may not gain much from journalists and television news, the
“we” I know still need the mass media to regurgitate political events and make judgments about news.
I am not saying that the “we” I know should grow content with gathering their news from mass media but simply stating what I see.
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
@Austin: Didn’t think of it that way. Kudos for the new perspective.
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:40 pm
For those of you, Jeff, who live in cities where broadband is widely available, yes the convention coverage is a waste. But to those of us, and many in rural America, who depend on the pitiful network coverage it’s the only chance we would get to be one of the 38 million who watched Barak Obama. I would agree with you that local papers and news casts are wasting money sending journalists to the conventions, but I would disagree that networks shouldn’t spend time airing and discussing them. If the bloviators could discuss intelligently instead sinking to the level of whiny children they would better serve the public. Of course, looking at the example set by Olberman, et. al. I doubt that will happen.
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Shorter Jeff: We cover politics too much, because I don’t understand politics!
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
The way I heard it, the 15,000 journalists were there mostly for networking purposes.
Networking? With whom? Each other? The to get as sources the same 2,000 “political insiders” with zero insight into the reporter’s home jurisdiction? What does that serve?
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:30 am
[...] het niet. Dat is een groot verschil met pakweg de Republikeinse conventie in de VS waar bloggers er vooral bij willen horen, bij de incrowd van het [...]
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
[...] Jarvis has much the same view and put it excellently both on BuzzMachine and his weekly column at the Guardian (my day [...]
September 4th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
It’s funny, but there were moments last night as I watched the television coverage of Gov. Palin’s speech when it seemed I was (still) watching the Olympics: “Wow! She really delivered on that one! That was a home run! She was confident, cool, focused! She sure came out from behind there, didn’t she, Mike-Lynn-Bob-Jay-Andy?” As you point out, covering politics “too often amounts to covering celebrity.” Celebrity, and entertainment: I can’t be the only one who thinks the conventions seem like some hyped-up version of “The Apprentice.”
Worst moment: When one of Chicago’s respected television political reporters (I will not name him) referred to Sarah Palin’s speech as “one of the most highly anticipated speeches in American History.”
Come again?
September 6th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Hi Jeff — hope the book is coming along fine!
The best place to watch the conventions was on C-Span. Then you don’t have to deal with what the “talking heads” had to say.
I used the “mute” button liberally, and just listened to the speeches that were important to me.
I’m sick to death of the spewing of both right and left-wing commentators, but I must admit that I love ending the day with Jon Stewart and “The Daily Show.” Most evenings, I go to sleep laughing rather than crying. Fridays with Bill Maher are great, too.
Best of luck with your writing!
Sincerely,
Ellen Kimball
Portland, Oregon
September 8th, 2008 at 9:54 am
The worst thing is that the British news media have given more airtime to the US party nominations and campaigns than they have political issues here in the UK.
Don’t misunderstand me here but John McCain’s choice of VP candidate is far less important to me than what my own incompetent government is doing to help its own citizens weather the credit crunch and imminent recession.
Let’s hope that the US news media pay as much attention to the UK elections - I’ll not be holding my breath.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Political theater just like the debates. Controlled for entertainment purposes.
Did anyone watch the cspan coverate of the Libertarian Convention? Now that was definitely NOT a polished and scripted convention!!!
VOTE 3RD PARTY IN ‘08: “The only ones saying a 3rd party vote is wasting your vote are from the two in power parties.”