The Medium is the Message

The whole "Prominent Beltway Figure Isn't All He's Cracked Up to Be" genre is often a tired one, but I have to say I enjoyed Paul Waldman's Tim Russert takedown. Still, I'm inclined to agree with Michael Brendan Dougherty:

My only problem with Waldman's piece is that it assumes "broadcast journalists" could (or once did) serve an important function as journalists. I can't think of any major broadcast figure who was lauded for his reporting. Instead they are all hailed from on high for possessing a quality. Jennings was dignified. Williams is warm. Murrow was authoritative. Brokaw was chewing on taffy. We should admit to ourselves that the Sunday Talk Shows are less entertaining versions of Conan O'Brien for people convinced that television can edify them, or educate them about current events.

I can think of some exceptions to this rule, but basically, the point holds: TV is a spectacularly bad medium for serious exchanges about politics. It's a very good medium, on the other hand, for political theater, which is why people like Russert - who's skillful at creating the "gotcha" moment, and great at playing the "guy from Buffalo who makes the powerful people nervous" - succeed in it. And complaining about the unwarranted respect he gets somewhat misses the point: Russert isn't a successful television personality because Reader's Digest and Howie Kurtz fawn all over him; they fawn all over him because he's a successful television personality, and his mix of superficial depth and deep superficiality is crucial to his appeal.

(The same goes for Jon Stewart, not incidentally, whose famous anti-Crossfire rant was itself just part of a schtick that runs as much toward superficiality - albeit of a liberal rather than bipartisan variety - as the show he was railing against.)

Comments

I thought Waldman's piece was dumb. I *like* questions that get politicos off-script - that's the only chance for me to learn anything about them. If I want to know their briefing points, I can go to their website.

Waldman's article was written like the Media Matters employee he is - in his opinion, journalists have an ethical obligation to provide the public with left wing propoganda so that the public learns the "truth" about its elected officials and public policy choices.

A good gotcha question is interesting, and even informative, every so often. If Obama can't handle Russert, what is he going to do with Putin or Achmedinijad?

Posted by J Mann | November 1, 2007 12:45 PM

Actually I think it's the desire to be rapid responding, and not the medium itself. Long series on PBS can often do a terrific job of educating the public.

Clearly there's an underserved market here. Part of what makes Olbermann unique is that he's a liberal bombthrower, but part of it is that he actually provides more depth than most programming. He never has more than one guest on at a time, he only covers five "stories" over the course of an hour (though sometimes multiple news items are encapsulated). So, I don't buy that the medium has to be this way.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | November 1, 2007 1:34 PM

If Obama can't handle Russert, what is he going to do with Putin or Achmedinijad?

Good Lord, when are people going to drop this ridiculously asinine juxtaposition? It means absolutely nothing.

No one has said that Obama, HRC or anyone else "can't handle" Russert. They do, all the time. Clinton does a particularly remarkable job, considering how Russert doesn't even bother trying to hide his obvious bias against her and his personal distaste for her. And don't forget Cheney going on MTP to "control the message." He gets Russert eating out of the palm of his blood-stained hands all the time.

Seriously - you want to know the candidates' favorite Bible verses? What will that tell you? If a candidate doesn't have a favorite verse, does that tell you something deep and insightful about him or her? Before you answer, let me answer: No, it does not. And the uselessness is magnified tenfold when someone has 10 seconds to state it and explain why.

No one's arguing against a "good gotcha question ... every so often." The problem is, for Russert it's become his entire schtick. He can't do anything else.

He's the poster child for the clubby Beltway establishment.

Posted by Woody Bombay | November 1, 2007 4:09 PM

"The same goes for Jon Stewart, not incidentally, whose famous anti-Crossfire rant was itself just part of a schtick that runs as much toward superficiality - albeit of a liberal rather than bipartisan variety - as the show he was railing against."

Okay, Ross. I realize that with a discredited Republican administration in the White House sometimes the only points a smart conservative can score will come from poking liberal figures in the eye or digging for anti-Americanism in Matt Damon movies, but this is off the mark.

As Greg Beato said:

"Too many high priests of journalism still see humor as the enemy of seriousness: If the news goes down too easily, it can’t be very good for you. But do The Onion and its more fact-based acolytes, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, monitor current events and the way the news media report on them any less rigorously than, say, the Columbia Journalism Review or USA Today?

During the last few years, multiple surveys by the Pew Research Center and the Annenberg Public Policy Center have found that viewers of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are among America’s most informed citizens. Now, it may be that Jon Stewart isn’t making anyone smarter; perhaps America’s most informed citizens simply prefer comedy over the stentorian drivel the network anchormannequins dispense. But at the very least, such surveys suggest that news sharpened with satire doesn’t cause the intellectual coronaries Postman predicted. Instead, it seems to correlate with engagement."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/122453.html

Posted by Ashish George | November 1, 2007 4:34 PM

Ashish George, I realize that when you enjoy a TV personality like Jon Stewart (and why wouldn't you?) that you have to leap wildly to his defense in the face of criticism, but read what Ross said. He was specifically talking about Stewart's famous "shame on you" speech on Crossfire. He wasn't criticizing what Stewart does day in and day out, and he certainly didn't say Stewart was making people stupid.

Stewart's chiding of the Crossfire folks, while it sounded refreshing for the first ten seconds, was certainly superficial. Had it been entirely a joke, it might have played well. But if you watch it you'll realize that Stewart thought he was making a serious point. And his point--that partisan bickering is bad for the polity--is at least as shallow and cheap a point as the ones that Crossfire trafficks in regularly. Stewart's a funny guy and the Daily Show's humor is smart stuff. But him thinking he's contributing significantly to social-political discourse by saying "You guys argue too much" is the same as Russert thinking he's unveiling the secrets of the powerful by asking about bible verses or whatever. A TV personality is always an entertainer first and a journalist second. It'd be best for Jon Stewart if he continued to focus on the former.

Posted by Chris Floyd | November 1, 2007 6:07 PM

his point--that partisan bickering is bad for the polity

That wasn't his point.

Posted by Toadmonster | November 1, 2007 6:50 PM

Chris, let me quote Ross again: "The same goes for Jon Stewart, not incidentally, whose famous anti-Crossfire rant was itself just part of a schtick that runs as much toward superficiality - albeit of a liberal rather than bipartisan variety - as the show he was railing against (emphasis mine)"

You said Ross wasn't criticizing "what Stewart does day in and day out." But according to the American Heritage Dictionary (via Dictionary.com), "schtick" means "a characteristic attribute, talent, or trait that is helpful in securing recognition or attention" or, alternatively, "an entertainment routine or gimmick." Either defintion connotes a consistent practice or pose held over time.

You also said, "And his point--that partisan bickering is bad for the polity--is at least as shallow and cheap a point as the ones that Crossfire trafficks in regularly." I'm not sure what definitions of "shallow" and "cheap" you're using here, and I doubt consulting any dictionary would help me. I could just as easily call those points obvious and true. At any rate, it's been a while, so here is the transcript of Stewart's appearance.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bljonstewartcrossfire.htm

Looking over the transcript, it's clear that Stewart's point wasn't that what was wrong with Crossfire was that Begala and Carlson argued too much or that one person represented the Republican and conservative point of view and one person represented the Democratic and liberal point of view. Rather, his point was that the debate took place at a visceral, uncritical level, the sort of thing you might expect from two particularly crude Yankees and Red Sox fans if you stuck them in a tv studio and let them have it out: "It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery."

Posted by Ashish George | November 1, 2007 7:11 PM

Jon Stewart has a problem: he actually cares about what he jokes on. Consider what gets him to be not funny. Most recently it was Chris Matthews' book "Life is a Campaign". He is not so much a liberal (though he is) on his show as someone who wants a degree of honesty.

He seemed to have great fun with Tony Snow. A couple of softballs followed by "Why does Bush always lie?". But he let Snow argue with him and acknowledged that Snow turned the argument around on him. He thought Snow was wrong, but he knew Snow was trying to answer the questions - and be funny too.

His real vitriol is for "very important people" who spew horse manure.

The administration will change and a couple of years into an Obama adminstration he will be driving liberals nuts. Remember: this is the guy who called the Dem leadership in congress the "biggest bunch of pussies".

Posted by Chris J. | November 2, 2007 4:48 PM

all i can say to Ross and Chris is "you WISH Stewart would stick to humor." Stewart was right-on about Crossfire, it's joke to claim otherwise, and it's a joke to claim the nonsense like Crossfire that passes for news isn't a Very Bad Thing fro democracy.
Overall, just more idiot "conservatives" taking any excuse to bash one of their main tormentors. it doesn't work.

Posted by charles | November 2, 2007 7:43 PM

I don't think Stewart's point has anything to do with liberals or conservatives.

His point, as I take it, was that those shows-- "Crossfire," "Hardball," "I'm Gonna Kick Your Ass," and "Fuck You, with Bill Press," as he's described them-- denigrate political discourse.

Every idea is stated in its most obnoxious and extreme fashion, and you will be rewarded as a talking head if you provoke and engage in nasty shoutfests, and claim to be on one "side" or the other all the time.

This caricature version of discussion and debate is pervasive, both on TV and among our elected representatives. This is a larger point than that partisan bickering is bad-- it's that political discussion is based on stating ideas in their rawest and most obnoxious form and barking about it as loud as you can.

It doesn't lead to well-considered policies. It hurts America.

I don't see why that's a particularly liberal or conservative viewpoint.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | November 3, 2007 11:22 AM