Now I’m bitter.
The last few election cycles have illuminated and exacerbated political gaffes like never before. In the past, politicians were able to speak more freely in closed-door fundraisers, assured that their comments would only fall upon favorable ears.
It seems that the “Macaca” incident may have only been the first of many YouTube blunders in American politics. Had George Allen’s comment been reported in print or relayed second-hand, it would have quickly evaporated into the ether. But in the instant-gratification era of YouTube politics, his invective reigns in perpetuity and – with a click of the mouse - shadows his legacy.
YouTube offers the (voting) public an entirely new source of information: politicians unfiltered through the lens of the journalist-as-middleman. With unambiguous clarity, the nuances and context of an event resonate with greater immediacy and intimacy. Everyone now has the opportunity to personally evaluate tone, delivery, facial expressions, and crowd response. And this is why Allen’s racially-charged comments clung to his candidacy: they were not fleeting, but deliberately delivered, staring directly at the camera, before mockingly remarking, “Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia,” which in a sense removed any confusion about his intent.
Fast-forward to the current kerfuffle over Obama’s “bitter” comment. In less than 48 hours, a search for “Obama Bitter” on YouTube yields 482 videos—or a new one every six minutes--which have collectively been viewed millions of times. Naturally, many videos have been edited to either increase or reduce context, depending on the political proclivities of the person uploading the feed.
It is here that many mainstream media outlets have shirked responsibility. Most television stations may play a sound bite of a sentence or two, and close with the remark that the “bitter” comment could hurt Obama’s election hopes. Politico’s Carrie Brown has an article entitled “Barack Obama’s Flip Side Revealed,” a moniker better suited for the checkout aisle of a grocery store rather than a respected site of political information. Even the renowned commentator George Will devoted an article to what he terms “Obama’s Bitter Liberalism.”
The problem is not that members of the media are reporting the issue, but rather the lackadaisical and pedestrian method in which it is discussed. Journalists try to deliver “the truth and nothing but the truth so help them, God,” but neglect the all-important “full truth,” which begs the question:
Do we even concern ourselves with providing context anymore?
It seems that the emphasis on sharpening a good “news peg,” against a deadline has dulled our collective sensibility and responsibility as journalists. We report the headline or the sound bite, and it is looped ad nauseam rather than opening the door for a more in-depth discussion.
The infamous line from Obama’s fundraising speech in San Francisco that appears in nearly every article is, “It is not surprising then they get bitter.” Unfortunately, almost across the board, there is little explanation of the word “then” in the sentence. “Then” signifies the extension of a previous line of thought. To wit, Obama discussed the problems of a stagnant economy and decades of broken promises at length, before offering the afterthought that “it’s not surprising then they get bitter.”
Certainly, some of the more responsible political commentators have bothered to do their homework and investigate the context of Obama’s utterance. But far too many are content to target the easy story, the headline, the sound bite—and in doing so, boldly flirt with journalistic negligence.
In an era where technology enhances convenience, pajama-clad bloggers and anonymous message board users amplify the shortcomings (spurred by budget cuts) of traditional media outlets. An arm’s-length detachment from the process of newsmaking often allows for a more “meta” or nuanced interpretation of both the event, and the reporting of the event. Traditional avenues for disseminating information have changed, and with YouTube and online press releases, the playing field has leveled for credentialed and non-credentialed members of the media.
What many people are coming to realize is that this leveling of the journalistic playing field has resulted in bloggers getting the story “right” at a pace that rivals—and even eclipses—that of more traditional outlets. The challenge for established media, simply put, is to “step its game up.” It no longer suffices to parrot back the headline from a press release. It is no longer acceptable to target the easy story instead of the thoughtful one. You can still get a “passing” grade for handing in such “work” by the end of the day – but it translates into readers and viewers “passing” by your work to get to the heart of the matter. What is at stake is no less than the survival of news media as we know it today.
With the “Macaca” gaffe in 2006, bloggers created such a cacophony that mainstream media was essentially coerced into reporting the event. With increasing budget cutbacks, members of the traditional press would do themselves a favor by reducing their recalcitrance against mining non-traditional sources of information.
By digging a little deeper, visiting YouTube, or reading a blog or two, many mainstream political pundits could have gotten the full story behind Obama’s “bitter” comment correct on the first draft. If Obama’s supposed gaffe did have overtones of being “out of touch,” those overtones unfortunately characterize those reporting the event.
It is not surprising, then that I am bitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment