It is the return of the echo chamber. This term may be hackneyed, but it's an apt description of the worst of contemporary journalistic practice and it's imperiling the outcome of the 2008 race. What I refer to as our media echo chamber (and it's at this point unfair to limit the description to mainstream media) is the uncritical repetition of a particular point of view as fact, with little reference to empirical evidence, and great reliance on the imagined authority of other people offering the same point of view. While it's certainly true that advocates of a certain position can be instrumental in launching an idea into the chamber, no conspiracy or puppet-master is required for citizens to suffer from the worst effects of broad, media group think.
What's astounding to me about what I see happening now is that people in the field of journalism and the culture at large have spent many public hours decrying this phenomenon as a major contributing factor in our entry into the Iraq War. Yet, somehow, another steady march is now underway.
What is the new foregone conclusion? From the Economist to the New York Times, it's hard to miss some mention of Hillary Clinton, the presumptive winner of her party's nomination for 2008. It appears as a subtle strain in some reporting, with a mere modifying clause that ratifies the self-evident value of Hillary's experience or her campaign's interpretation of fund-raising totals. In other cases, pieces are built from top to bottom around dubious assumptions seem to have been pulled directly from a briefing by Terry McAuliffe.
If this blog has done anything, I hope that it has given proof of my interest in legitimate criticism and tough questioning of all candidates and campaigns. I am not afraid of people taking on flaws in Barack Obama's operation, or that of John Edwards, or any other contender. If anything, a well-reasoned critical piece by a prominent journalist could provide some valuable insights that might reach Barack directly and be translated into useful action.
I object vigorously, however, to the uncritical repetition of so-called facts with little foundation in research or true journalistic investigation. The most insidious examples appear when major news outlets, trying to capitalize on the ubiquitous blogging phenomenon (I feel like I'm talking about those fresh, new bell-bottom trousers as I write that in late 2007, but anyway...), maintain some pretense of objective reporting as they use regular contributors to make blog updates. Short-form entries end up being built on unacknowledged bias combined with the most sensational facts and short-hand references to conventional wisdom.
This is no way for the Fourth Estate to contribute to building an informed, participatory and critical citizenry. New media, while often an ethically gray land of noise and confusion, should be a last, best hope for an alternative perspective on the facts. More voices should create a more complicated picture.
That's why I was so disappointed when I came across this piece, Obama: Trailing Off?, on the Huffington Post's OffTheBus site. I have become an occasional visitor and sometime commenter on that site, because it often does provide a set of facts that are lost in other channels. The attempt to provide a highly visible platform for unpaid contributors to share their insights and receive (presumably) some editorial review is commendable.
How then, did this piece slip through the cracks? It's valuable in that it is much easier to dissect than an article appearing in the New York Times. It lacks the tiered editorial review, quality of professional craftsmanship and authority of venue that can obfuscate similarly empty pieces in conventional news sources.
It's worth reading as a glaring example of how quickly people begin to repeat received ideas and offer them as fact, or worse, some kind of analytical insight of their own. Like a piece of unfinished furniture, you can study how it was constructed without being distracted by shiny finishes or other ornate superficial details that might be added by a master-builder.
I offer you my comments on the piece below. I genuinely don't know if these will make it onto the site, but I'm actually tempted to write a letter to the site's editor, regardless. I'd encourage you, reader, to do the same, if you find the original as disappointing as I did.
This post really does seem oddly "On the Bus" and inconsistent with the general trend in reporting on this site. Other than the first-person experience of having watched a debate (presumably on television), this is an analytically light gloss on secondary and tertiary sources from mainstream media. To the editorial staff: What exactly is this report's function on this site?
As altohone observed, at best, this piece seems intended to goad Obama or his followers into a change of course. At worst, it's a terribly empty echo of the nexis-assembled conventional wisdom that's showing up across mainstream media outlets.
After an inflammatory (albeit conventional) lede, Mr. Moorad alludes to New Hampshire poll data, but draws conclusions based primarily on national numbers. I read his very certain assertions ("It is clear..." and "It is evident...") about Obama's abilities, but I don't see much specificity about missteps or deficits -- just a selective reiteration of polling data. Selective, because of the conspicuous omission of last week's Newsweek survey showing Obama shifting into the lead in Iowa among likely caucus-goers.
Given that the Obama campaign has steadily articulated a four-state strategy, with Iowa squarely at its head, this data seems worth factoring into any analysis. Meanwhile, uncritical interpretations of Hillary's poll position ("appears to be a growing, insurmountable political-breakaway") and relative qualifications ("the inevitable victor with the credentials to match") aren't given legs within the piece to support the weight of the words. The rhetoric has the second-hand ring of Sunday shows and recent NYT reporting.
I write all of this as an Obama supporter who has spent a great deal of time writing critically about the campaign's execution. There is a valid topic to explore here: Is Obama's relative inexperience in national campaign management hurting him in a field of seasoned political veterans with battle-tested machines?
Unfortunately, this piece seems more an awkward exercise in style, losing all track of substance, and effectively perpetuating the worst of contemporary journalistic practice. Or, in other words ... Echo. Echo. Echo. Echo.
No comments:
Post a Comment