Hang on to your hats people, this is going to get rough.
2012, a presidential election year, surely this is a time when the "news media" can come into their own, earn their collective crusts and actually perform some nominal service to the public, to aid them if you will, through the traps and unseen undercurrents of the American Political System right?
Well, actually no, not at all.
2012 is destined to go into the history books as the year corporate controlled news media failed American Democracy.
Where do we begin? Of course with the Citizens United case and the creation of the whole Super PAC phenomenon. Where were the media when explaining this to the American people was possibly the most important thing they could have been doing? They were AWOL - probably because their corporate overlords saw the Citizens United case as just fine and dandy. And it was just that for the News Corps and GEs of the world, but the American Political Process has been royally fucked up by it.
All the news media ( left, right, undecided ) singularly failed in their mandate to inform the people about the consequences of this truly egregious case. It probably wasn't until the Iowa campaign, when Romney's Super PAC effectively carpet bombed Gingrich out of that race, that they came late to the table and tried to remedy their huge mistake. Too little. Too freaking late. Why didn't they get on Super PACs earlier? Corporate interference not to? Could have been, but I choose to think it was a combination of sheer laziness and a perceived notion that the story was not interesting enough, or it would be too boring, or too obscure or too damn unsexy to snag the interest of people. You know, the "people"? Those human beings who tune in to "news outlets" to heaven forbid, learn something about what's going on so they can make informed choices? THOSE people. Oh yes, they'd certainly go straight to the remote on hearing a story about the usurpation of their country's political system. Wouldn't they?
So it was left to Jon Stewert and Stephen Colbert to guide those who wanted to know through the labyrinthine ways of Super PACs, their function, their controls and the ludicrous notion of "not coordinating" with a particular campaign. Riiiight. I cannot believe that the nine bozos on the Supreme Court couldn't have taken a few minutes to sit down before rendering the Citizens United verdict just to say, like in a game of chess, "If we rule in favor of 'X', what will be the immediate consequences to say 'Y'? " Where 'Y' just happens to be the integrity of the entire US electoral process. Couldn't they have foreseen that ultimate "coordination that was non-coordination" fiasco last week when Gingrich addressed the crowd and said "I'm talking to you ( the audience ) because I can't coordinate with the Super PAC, but the Super PAC should correct errors and remove ads if they have false allegations in them"? Couldn't they have foreseen that a "smart guy" like Gingrich would make a mockery of the Super PAC rules almost before the ink was dry on them? I heard Chief Justice Roberts was a clever man when he was nominated to the Supreme Court. He seemed to be so in his confirmation hearings. But on the evidence of the Citizens United ruling, I think we have been hugely misled on the cleverness issue in his case.
What else? Oh yes, laziness, still reporting the horse race, not reporting the subtlety of changes to delegate allocation, too damn eager to say "After such-and-such a race, it looks like it is going to be all wrapped up for Mr Front Runner".
All the news media were so quick to say "Romney's won two" and "First time since 19xx" and "If he makes a clean sweep in South Carolina, it's most likely all over".
In their lazy and simplistic coverage of the first GOP nominating contests, they ( the news media ) falsely colored people's perceptions of how the race was going when they said that Mr Romney had won the first two contests. This was especially stupid given the 8 vote margin initially given to Mr Romney AND given that the officially announced winner had not been certified by the Iowa Republican Party. So eager were the media to be first, to pick the winner, give him a garland and move on, that they allowed their perceptions, their prejudices to put Mr Romney in that top spot even though THE VERY NEXT DAY one caucus worker said Romney had been give 22 votes in a caucus count when in fact he should have received only 2. But on the night of the vote, a declared margin of victory of only eight should have presented more than enough uncertainty from a process may I remind you that involves COUNTING, for the media to say "Too close to call". But oh no, they wanted that result, they needed that result to validate their election coverage and their process and their glitzy swishy moving walls o'data.
"Mitt's the winner. Nothing else to see here people. On the bus to New Hampshire we go! Single Malts all round! Job well done boys and girls. Here's your bonus, Now let's make sure to wow them in New Hampshire just the same and we can all take a break in Florida, because after that one, we will most certainly be done. And we will have earned our time in the sun. Oh yes indeed we will have".
Also, this desire to be first, announce the winner, move on and so be able to declare someone has "sewn it all up" also leads to a profound and exceptionally unhelpful phenomenon - namely the received wisdom of "the media have decided its over, so it's over".
What should have happened in any of these contests, is that the media should not have concentrated on the winner nor even his margin of victory. This they should have strived to avoid in every minute of every hour of their coverage. What they should first and foremost have said was "Mr 'X' has won and will receive 'Y' delegates for the GOP Convention in Tampa which will happen a long long way down the road in this process of choosing the GOP presidential nominee. Mr 'X' now has a total of 25 delegates, he needs 1214 delegates to secure the GOP nomination".
The emphasis at any time in this process has to be on how many delegates the candidates have and how many they need, not reporting the horse race results after each caucus or primary and then having the talking heads come on and say "This is almost over" and "One more result like tonight and Mr 'X' has the nomination virtually sewn up". What? After TWO contests? And one of those a caucus where but a few thousand people get involved? Really? All over so soon? No. Of course it isn't. The media want you to think it is by telling you they want it to be so.
Heck even the less than unbiased information source called Conservapedia says of the 2012 GOP nominating process that "It is virtually impossible for a candidate to win a majority of delegates before June 2012". ( direct quote )
Why did the news media not report the contests this way? It almost seems they are conspiring with the big money donors, the GOP and the people on the inside to tell us, the saps in this entire process, that "It's all over now. Nothing to see after Florida". Which is of course palpably untrue and does a tremendous disservice to the political process in this country.
And it simply adds insult to the proverbial knee-in-the-groin injury, when you come to find out that this year, the delegates in contests before April 2012 will be allocated proportionately to their vote totals in any particular caucus or primary. This fact alone makes it even more important then ever for the news media to restrain from picking and anointing "The Big Winner" and to just report the three simple facts of, how many votes did each candidate get, how many delegates does that number translate into and how many delegates short of 1214 is each person who is still running.
I am truly appalled by all news organizations' efforts in covering the GOP nominating process to date.
And the sad thing is I don't see them getting any better as we move on to the Florida primary. They clearly will not accept any culpability in their distortion of a process designed not to be over until June at the earliest.
Phew! Rant over.
And I didn't even get to what piss poor candidates they are. How can Newt Gingrich, an insider if ever such a beast existed, get the GOP nomination for President when Congress ( his domain ) has an approval rating of 8%? Which. as was pointed out last week on the TV, is a lower number than the approval rate for Socialism.
And Romney, a man who has changed every thought he ever had in his head?
And Santorum, a theocratic loon with a strange and unhealthy obsession with same-sex relationships?
WTF America? WTF.
