Reporting For Ratings

Something that I think often gets lost in the shuffle of media criticism is that the purpose of the media has evolved. Due in large part to the rise of the 24 hour news channel, the media has gone from the information business to the entertainment business. Getting the best reporting is secondary to getting the best ratings. Joe Scarborough is probably the best example of this. Take a look at some of his predictions from 2006.

On Obama

Barack Hussein Obama is more Johnny Bravo than John Kennedy. The vest fits and the fans scream while DC’s star-maker machinery shifts into overdrive. Like Peter Brady’s Bravo, Obama’s shot at the top will be short lived. But since BHO is young enough, dynamic enough and (just) black enough to whip official Washington into a frenzy, expect this stupid story to stick around for a while.

On Hillary Clinton

Time and again throughout the next few years, Bill Clinton will make the difference on fundraising, networking and strategy. And 2007 will show that any politico who dares to cross Team Clinton risks being crushed into dust.

On Al Gore

Gore will feel growing pressure to save the party from Hillary Clinton. If his biggest contributors from 2000 line up, he will run. But let’s just hope he curbs his appetite by 2008, for the sake of his image and our arms.

Now, I will give Joe a bit of a pass considering that it was 2006 but even leading up to the early primaries Joe was saying pretty much the same stuff about the Obama/Clinton face-off. And he was dead wrong in 2006 and he was dead wrong in 2008....and he is rewarded with a three hour show on MSNBC. Joe isn't a lone in being consistently wrong, but rewarded for being so. How many talking heads called the primary over after Iowa and before New Hampshire? Think any of them are out of work? Remember all the trouble Obama was going to have winning Ohio and Pennsylvania because Clinton won them and he didn't? Remember how they were huge wins for Clinton, nevermind she only gained somewhere around 9 delegates over Obama and would need about 40 more wins from states the size of Ohio and Texas to catch up.

Solid, factual information has taken a backseat to ratings. Hell, in many cases it isn't even in the car, but hitchiking somewhere along the information highway. This is the biggest problem within the media, the shows and pundits that are most watched aren't staffed by the best reporters, but by those who bring in the most viewers, listeners and readers.

Take a look at the current stimulus debate. We are facing a crisis of historical porportions that could get much much worse. We aren't discussing that on the teevees though. You don't see many economists talking about what the lack of credit in the economy means and why it is important for us not to rely on a bubble based economy (think housing and technology). Instead, the reporting is 95 percent about how to get bipartisan support for the stimulus package. It is almost as if the lack of bipartisanship in politics is what caused our economic troubles and only bipartisanship can save us. Republicans Vs. Democrats is second only to CNN's consistent 'Where the White Woman At' stories in the ratings games. Talking about the actually workings of the economy, is something most of us would avoid like the plague.

An uninformed public is a bad one and when the media is made up of ratings grabbers instead of news gatherers we are worse off. The sad thing is that there really isn't much you can do about it, at least not that I can see.

*so I don't get an email from friends, Clinton's pick-ups from Ohio and Texas are just rough guess. I seem to remember it was either 9 or 7. Both those numbers could be wrong and probably are.