Celebrities and the Media

To sort of redirect the Lion's Den's take on the Puff Daddy comments, I'd like to provoke some conversation as to the importance of celebrities to politicians and the media.  This certainly isn't a new topic, case in point Ronald Regan.  However, the idea of celebrity has entered into the political discourse during this campaign maybe more so than most others.  Ever since McCain's ad came out (and really before then) celebrity status has been portrayed by many during this election as a negative.  

Aside from being economically out of touch (gosh I hate cliches, but here I am using one), the single biggest criticism of celebrities is that they are vapid and don't know much about politics.  So, why introduce a celebrity into the political climate in the first place?  

Well, an easy answer might be that it all goes back to Pop Culture Critics definition of media bias - whatever sells most.  Celebrities are big draws.  Anna Nicole's death dominated news coverage for what seemed like eternity as an example.  Perhaps, though, celebrities and politicians have a few things in common that transcend simple marketing principals.

Politicians, like celebrities, are sometimes very charismatic.  They exude an often toxic blend of confidence and arrogance that the masses seem to eat up.  Perhaps no more so than Obama, who's confidence and arrogance have been not only an odd part of his message - audacity - but also a major criticism of his image.  This is, of course, on top the weird double narrative his campaign is projective.  That his presidency is not about him, it is about us.  This inclusion, I think, among other things plays into the second thing that celebrities and politicians have in common.

Voyeurs.  Power attracts all sort of strange and odd people.  Yet, strange and odd people still have a vote.  And in a democracy every person you can attract gives you a better chance.  So, it seems only natural that politicians would cling to celebrities.  They are well documented attracters of people (read votes).  

So celebrities sell papers and attract votes.  And although they may know absolutely nothing about the issues, through those two things they seem to serve an increasingly important part of the process.      

Bias

Just a question.  I'd love to hear what everybody thinks.  Does the media itself have a hostile media bias?

It all fits!

I'll admit it.  I watched MSNBC tonight during the DNC's final few hours.  Not because it was my choice, mind you, but because it was the only station some of the gals down at Stern were willing to watch on their 36th street lobby's television.  Still though, it was little consolation to me, especially during the Chris Matthews Tirades (yes, that's a proper compound noun.  Only his rants have a special flavor, a blend of grown man locker room sweat and teenage girl at Justin Timberlake concert angst).  

What I couldn't help but notice, perhaps more than anything, was the constant attempt at placing everything about the evening, be it Gore's speech to Obama's speech, into a simple narrative.  According to this simple narrative Obama had to do three things tonight.  Appear tough enough to claim the title commander-in-chief.  Be specific about what "change" was.  And, of course, making judgement more of a factor than experience.  

How are these objectives chosen by the media?  How do I know that the average voter is concerned about these three things?  Well, the average voter is informed by media coverage.  And the media, in its attempt to sell, has reduced the race to a competition.  The competition, the fight, the battle, the war between Obama and McCain takes center stage.  Not the policy.   

In this sense, then, the media (please read MSNBC, since that is what I was watching) is guilty of creating gaps in the coverage of the race.  Even after Obama's speech, of which 1/3 was devoted to matters of policy, most of the talking points, 5 of the 8 I watched, were devoted to his comments about McCain.   

So, these objectives don't come from the Obama campaign.  If you visit Obama's website you can learn his opinion on policy.  His beliefs and his opinions are perhaps more available than any other candidates' in history.  No, these objectives come from a severe lack in media coverage that results from a simplified narrative designed to hype the big VS between the two candidates' names.  

Klein hits it out of the park when he writes that "the comment 'let's not make a big election out of small things' was not just a rejoinder to John McCain, but also to the press."  The need for a simplified, let's call it bumber sticker narrative, that hypes the conflict between the two candidates was the running theme of the evening.  

In the end, perhaps that is what the media really wants.  The narratives which they have put forth are not about the candidates.  They are not about the candidates positions, policies, or politics.  At the end of the day, at least tonight, the media's narrative was about itself.   

Smug Alert

You know you've been given a gift when Foxnews takes its cues from South Park.  Check this out.  

The Myth of Mainstream Media

I've been reading quite a few posts lately and all try to point out an agenda or a bias in mainstream media.  Now, I pride myself on careful diction and thoughtful discourse, so I couldn't help but take up the mantle of the ready, obvious problem - what is mainstream media?  

There is, I think, not that much of a question in its utility.  In the blogs, and in most discussions on media, it generally refers to media that is both easily accessible and has a wide audience.  But to stick a label on the multitude of news outlets is dangerously unthoughtful, perhaps even analogous with the erroneous claim that Jews control the media.  

Instead of getting routed into such a mindset, maybe it would be best to allow for a working assumption.  There is no mainstream media.  True, it makes discussions more difficult, and perhaps more obscure, however it does not do a disservice to thought.  

You see, there are a number of large news outlets, and a number of different mediums, each with (and this is the important part) different audiences and thus different constituents.  Perhaps the only governing generalization we can make about media is that it most sell.  To echo pop culture critic, the media generally has a bias to whatever sells more papers.  To qualify that, however, this is not always true, and with the advent and usage of relatively low costs communication forums (read: the internet) media has fractured into small, niche outlets addressing the attitudes of fewer and fewer groups of people.  

Either way there is a complex relationship between media and its audience.  Even in the news outlets that try to appeal to a number of different audiences.  Foxnews, is perhaps, the best example of this sort of complex dichotomy.  It is, after all, a mainstream media outlet, however its attitude is generally different than most other forms of mainstream media.  And that, my friends, is where the phrase "mainstream media" breaks down and ceases its usefulness - if it ever had any to begin with.   

Little boxes

Having just finished watching one of McCain's new ads, the one specifically dealing with Obama's Rezko connection (how Obama acquired his house), I couldn't help thinking of a West Wing episode.  Bartlet lets a comment slip while on national tv, his challenger responds and is led through a series of humiliating moments.  I can't quite remember which episodes it was, but McCain's misstep has allowed him to open one of the less explored aspects of this campaign, which is Obama's connection to Rezko specifically, but also the Chicago political scene in general.

That said, the most intriguing bit of this whole house thing, for my money, is that McCain couldn't remember something.  Most media and its critics, Pop Culture Curator for example, are taking this as a labor statement.  It certainly is to some extent, but come on.  We all know that in order to be president you have to be rich.  If you don't know that, well, you've been living under a rock or in West Virginia.  

But folks, the oldest candidate in history can not remember how many houses he owns.  Why is the media seemingly ignoring this?*

*please link me if you have seen an article or two addressing the subject

Every body should watch this:

John Stewart on Crossfire

OMG: this is totally relevant

Both McCain and Obama's camps have responded to Paris' awful yet amusing campaign message.  

McCain spokeman Tucker Bounds:

"It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain's "all of the above" approach to America's energy crisis..."

McCain is weirdly participating in validating the same celebrity he used to criticize Obama.    

Obama spokesperson, Bill Burton, participates in the same celebrity that McCain accused Obama of though, with his trite valley-girl, paris hilton-esque response "whatever."  

This sub-text can be seen as incredibly involved.  And it is.  It, though, is also simply ridiculous.

testing...

1.2.3.