Nagging Annoyances

We all know that a large portion of the media is full of shit. We call them the punditocracy. Who coined the term? The punditocracy themselves. Here's a cute little quality of the punditocracy - the people in it generally don't acknowledge that they're members of it. The person speaking is a journalist who is aware of the existence of the pundits - somewhere else.

And what do these pundit/journalists do for a living? I have no idea. They inform us that 90% of the black vote has gone to Barack Obama or Hillary was up 20% in Pennsylvania but is not up 5% or something. They tell us that older people like HIllary and younger people like Barack. Who is the audience for this information and what do they do with it? Does that fact that older people like Hillary and younger people like Barack effect my thoughts about my vote at all. I don't think it does, or it should, so who are they speaking to and why.

I suppose, in a gentle world, their job is to look at the available evidence and make broad generalizations about what is happening in this political contest in such a way that illuminates the truth of it. Except they aren't trained scientists, so they're not careful or good with evidence. They aren't trained psychologists, so they aren't careful with thoughts about motivation and effect. They aren't really expert on anything really except reporting the events of a specific day. Unfortunately, most of what happens on any given day without a primary isn't news, they make it up. Period. They make it up. They ascribe motivations to people based entirely on their own experience of the world. They generalize based on incorrect information. They read data incorrectly. They label things with shapes and numbers ("The primary in Penns depends on white male vote!" as though they are the only people who need to show up) that don't really describe anything.

And, when you point all this out to them, they rationalize, justify, and explain as though somehow you missed their brilliant point. As though somehow their job wasn't to be relevant, useful, and factually conservative. As though somehow its your fault for wanting some more reality-based information from them because they've got this wide, wide audience that love love loves what they do. Somewhere. There is an audience of intellectual kindred spirits to these narcissistic pundits somewhere. . .

What I just wrote is pretty commonly accepted as fact. Everyone with an opinion already has that opinion, including the pundits. But then, because there are people in the world who have time to be informed and like the attempt, we read some of this stuff, accidentally. How do you know whether you're reading actual journalism or nonsense until you've read it? We read some of this stuff and forget to discount it. I hate to hear regular people quoting back the accepted wisdom of the pundit class -- even though they have disdain for the pundits -- when the accepted wisdom fits in with their world view. For example, I have no idea whether Mike Huckabee is a right wing conservative whack job or not. Since I wasn't voting in the GOP primary, I figured I didn't need to know it until the general election, if it came to that, but I certainly wouldn't accept the word of the pundit class on the subject. The fact that I can't replace their conclusion with one of my own, i.e., "No he's not a right wing religious whack job. He's really a liberal in religious clothing," makes it hard to resist the allure of a definite conclusion. Nonetheless, I'd rather sit in accurate ignorance than allow nonsense that I know is nonsense to seep in to my head. I get so sad when I hear otherwise intelligent people quoting back some pundit or other who said some this thing or that when I know they know that pundits are cockroaches on the body politic -- even the ones they agree with.

Here's another angle on this media landscape where annoyance lies. The general explanation for this barren and useless landscape of crapola is that 24 hour media needs to fill time, and this is the easiest way to fill it. I buy that. That seems true. However, I also think that the people who think about this stuff publically make a fundamental miscalculation about the nature of the human creature. They think that people are motivated by entirely shallow arguments, images, and ideas because entirely shallow arguments, images, and ideas get better ratings and more click-thrus. I think/suspect/believe that this is false. I think, yes, people do enjoy watching the next train wreck that is Britney Spears life because its easy to watch and fascinating like an accident is and it doesn't really ask anything of the viewer. This doesn't mean however that people don't know it has no actual value in their life. They do know what's important and what's not important. Time spent watching or reading about something, when measured in minutes or seconds is indicative of nothing about the psychology of a person.

For example, I read the article about Barack Obama's bowling because it was cute and it was quick and it was everywhere. I probably read it as soon as I saw the headline because I had a couple minutes I was looking to waste online between other tasks. The article about his tax policy in comparison to Hillary's tax policy, which was an incredible and wonderful example of excellent journalism that everyone I mention it to remembers, I may not have read as soon as I saw it. I knew it was going to take me longer to read. I knew it was going to involve some thought. So I saved it until I had the time. This resistance to the more difficult articles doesn't convey some shallowness on my part nor does it convey that I thought Obama's bowling score was more important than his tax policy because I read about it quicker. It simply conveys the obvious fact that shallow is shallow and deep is deep. Shallow is easier, yes, by its own nature -- not because the audience for it needs, wants, demands easy. It doesn't seem to occur to anyone that we all do kind of know the difference between important and unimportant. And we value that different. It doesn't mean that we can't enjoy unimportant at the same time.

Another kind of example, pundits attributed Hillary Clinton's success in New Hampshire to the fact that she teared up. Isn't it entirely possible that her success in New Hampshire was attributed to the fact that the people who voted for her liked her policy, her person, and her approach more than they liked Obama? Perhaps they're responses to interview questions aren't as illuminating as reporters want them to be but "regular voters" aren't reporters. They're under no obligation to be articulate about their responses to things.

Why do I keep typing this morning? I believe that people do enjoy both shallow and deep thoughts. And salty and sweet foods. I think the fact that people press the shallow button more than they press the deep button isn't a reflection of their needs and desires but instead a simple reflection that shallow is an easier button to press than deep. I wish we could acknowledge this. I think there is money to be made in this. People actually want deep and important with their shallow and stupid. Won't someone give them both? Please.

It annoys me, I guess, that I'd like a little importance in my culture and can't find it anywhere.