I'm going to cheat and back-date this to yesterday to create the illusion that I wrote and posted it on Sunday. Sneaky, no? But no one will know. Unless, of course, I reveal that I....
Wait a minute. Oops.
Anyway, this is the essay I would have written yesterday, had I done so. But I didn't.
The issue of religion in politics (as in, its proper role) is one of the most boring topics on Earth, but one kept alive by the inability of huge numbers of people to understand the issues involved. No one sums up the basic facts better than Charles Krauthammer in a column that just appeared in our paper. And I would gladly link to his column if 1) The Washington Post site had it, and 2) If using the site didn't require registering. To heck with that. I'm tired of creating new passwords. Aren't you? I think we all are.
Anyway, Krauthammer notes that there are two issues being confused as one--the fact that religion is very much okay for the public square (we live in a free country, after all) vs. the fact it's not O.K. (it's unconstitutional, in fact) for the government to favor one religion or religious view over another. And, therefore, it's a cause for concern when someone (like Mitt) gives a speech suggesting that the establishment clause was written mainly to waste ink.
Such is the essence of the exciting, energizing, talk-to-your-friends-at-the-watercooler-until-you-lose-track-of-time "dialogue" that is faith and politics.
Point being, Krauthammer puts his finger on the real topic--which is not the establishment clause/principle itself, but the inability of people to grasp it. Which is to be expected when the issue is constantly being side-stepped and/or misrepresented. People get confused. Confusion not being a bad thing (it's a good defense against the mass input of b.s., after all) unless it remains unresolved.
Unresolved confusion tends to lead to indifference. That's the main danger.
The press has no time to worry about its role in generating indifference--it has sponsors to please and jobs to keep. And so, in our case, it focuses on religious controversy, to the point of generating it. For the same reason, of course, that it goes on about Britney's cellulite--such issues are easier than heck to report on, they can be repeated over and over, they simply require the rerunning of the same tape loops, and any controversy they generate is safe controversy. The press doesn't have to answer to how (no pun intended) it covers Britney's ass OR how it covers the latest complaint from Americans Against Religion. It's the safest stuff to cover, and the easiest, and it generates lots of money.
Otherwise, the press would have to do its job. Which, in defense of the press, the public tends not to make worth its while. (Yes, you heard me correctly.) Put yourself in the press' place. When you knock yourself out to get the news to the folks, what's your reward? Complaints about the negativity of the reports, accusations of bias, and a generally indifferent reaction to items that OUGHT to (but don't) concern the news-viewing public. Worst of all, three months after you've covered something, there are angry bloggers accusing you of not having covered it. Never mind that, back when you made the mistake of bringing it up, nobody gave a tinker's dam. Then, once people DO start caring, they start asking why you didn't warn them. The press can't win.
So, in a very real way, I can't blame the press for dumbing down its coverage. As far as I'm concerned, the audience is chiefly to blame. Ultimately, news consumers determine the menu.
It's just another way of saying that, if McDonald's patrons wanted healthier food, they'd demand it. And they don't. I'm thinking of a quarter pounder with cheese, so that's why the McD's metaphor. (As if I needed the fat.)
Anyway, the milking of religion in politics is to be expected in a dumbed-down media. Not that the faith-based issues are meaningless, by a long shot. Not that we aren't being given a wonderful opportunity right now to meaningfully discuss the basic American principles in question. Not that there's anything wrong with reviewing who we are and how we got there. (Help--I'm running out of cliches.) But it's not going to happen, so long as the cheap exploitation of faith means ratings.
And, yes, the press is helping this stuff along. Mightily. Frank Rich--a columnist I like most of the time--just wrote about the hyping of Romney's speech on religious intoler.... I mean, the role of religion in governing. Rich concludes that the press pre-hyped the thing because it thought Romney was going to give a JFK-level speech.
Frank. Frank. Frank. Earth calling Frank.
Nobody in the press thought Romney was going to give a JFK-style speech. The media hyped up the speech so that everyone would get even more upset about it than they would have, sans any build-up. The press smelled a fight, and it proceeded to make it as big a fight as possible. Again, safe coverage.
I'm only the one-zillionth blogger to suggest that the press focuses on non-issues in order to avoid the real stuff. It's not a new concept. Yet, specific instances of this practice, no matter how blatant, aren't always obvious to us. And that's where I come in.
I'm the specific instance pointer-outer. Or, the SIPO. The sound of which I don't like. SIPO.
Let me come up with a different phrase.
Oh, and did I mention that this is Sunday?
Lee
No comments:
Post a Comment