Blitzer-Kucinich (for we who complain about coverage)

[tishaLA]

I just found this very good piece about the Kucinich/Blitzer exchange that occurred in the aftermath of the NH primary. It discusses the cruelty of modern journalism and why coverage sucks so bad. http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2004/01/29/blitzer_loser.html

<snip>
And Wolf Blitzer, who has a journalistic mind not just conventional, but wholly conventional, asked Kucinich to kindly explain why he, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, was such a loser. I was folding socks at the time, so I did not write down what exactly Blitzer said. And it was not on a regular CNN show, so the transcript has been hard to find. (Help: If you have it, email me please.)

Lacking the text, I have just the effect of Blitzer's question, the gist-- which is arguably the unit TV communicates in. Blitzer was showing he could be "tough" with Kucinich about the uncomfortable but critical issue of unexplained loserhood. You have to go back in years to your own high school and try to hear Wolf saying what he essentially did say to the candidate that night: why do so few people like you, loser?

<snip>

But then, "why are you such a loser, Dennis?" is asked not for the benefit of the viewing audience. It is not for voters' ears, either. Blitzer asks it for reasons wholly internal to his profession, and the only interest served, I think, is the journalist's. Everyone else loses, especially Kucinich, whose minute of public humiliation may not be Wolf Blitzer's aim, but is the certain effect.

When the press looks for its credibility problems today, it ought to look more at moments like these. To me, it's in-credible, Blitzer's question. The public serice validity I assign it is zero. Most of the audience, most of the time, senses the bad faith in it, whether we "like" Kucinich or not. In a catalogue of low points for the campaign press (which, done well, is an idea for a kick-ass weblog... ) this was one.

[einniv]

1. Here is the solution

Someone responded at the link you posted:

one way to stop this nonsense is to turn off your TV
Posted by: steve harley at January 31, 2004 02:38 PM

I think that is the answer. I very very rarely watch TV or cable (in fact I don't have cable any more). As a medium for information it is a joke. For entertainment not much better imho. I am a sucker for Hollywood entertainment (movies) I must admit but TV is just too much for me.

I watched the superbowl last night and found it disturbing. Not the boob or any of that crap. But the imagery and commericals and talk is just so transparent and worthless.

[bryant69]

2. Yes and no

I rarely watch tv for news myself, prefering the much more accurate news provided by random internet posters (and, of course, weblogs). (OK, in reality I read the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and MSNBC as well). But the problem isn't how to reach you, it's how to reach the American people. In other words tv news needs to be reformed because that's still where a lot of our fellow citizens get their news.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[tishaLA]

3. Precisely

We all know Blitzer, Zahn, Matthews, O'Reilly, etc. are idiots and that they lower political discourse. After all, we have suffered this political season--as we did four years ago--by having political discussions that amount to poll numbers in X state or fundraising numbers by X candidate (these are often fostered by the candidates and campaigns themselves). We lose the issues and getting candidates to elaborate upon their positions.

For those of us who love policy, it's not such a bad thing. But for the broad expanse of the country, who have little interest in (or little time to explore) the minutiae of a given candidate's position on trade, it is debilitating. It fosters a vote for "personality" pr mythography. Blitzer's spineless posturing in front of Kucinich is exemplary in this regard. And destructive of productive democratic discourse.