The audacity of Elizabeth Edwards
Before I write about today's big Rev. Wright story, I have to highlight Elizabeth Edwards' op-ed in this weekend's New York Times. It may seem a bit ironic to praise an article that is critical of the media and the kind of yellow journalism that seems to thrive day in and day out--mostly because we are all guilty of reveling in it--but I'm going to do it anyway.
We've all whined about how the coverage of the Dem race has often veered away from the issues, regardless of whom you support for president. The media isn’t a perfect entity. It’s easy to get caught up in the spin, but often we talk less about the issues, and more about Hillary’s laugh or Obama’s penchance for arugula. It’s true that some of these details help color our opinions, but they shouldn’t be the main focus.
Instead of blaming a particular candidate, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of John Edwards, looks at what journalism has become today. (It must be noted that she also criticizes campaign PR machines). Edwards:
"The vigorous press that was deemed an essential part of democracy at our country’s inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional articles. I am not suggesting that every journalist for a mainstream media outlet is neglecting his or her duties to the public. And I know that serious newspapers and magazines run analytical articles, and public television broadcasts longer, more probing segments.
But I am saying that every analysis that is shortened, every corner that is cut, moves us further away from the truth until what is left is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call strobe-light journalism, in which the outlines are accurate enough but we cannot really see the whole picture."
She calls such news coverage “shallow,” and notes how we are looking more at the narratives of the candidates rather than the issues they stand on. Of course, it’s necessary to take character into account, but when the news is dominated by Bosnia and bowling scores vs. health care and the economy, it’s the voters who ultimately lose. The candidates are out there talking policy, but the headlines are still dominated by the back and forth. Some may argue that there isn’t a whole lot of difference between Clinton and Obama in terms of policy, but Edwards dismisses that handily.
Most Americans know the differences the Dems have in their health care plans because they watched them debate this issue. Debates are a great way to bring out the differences, especially if the candidates can agree on a platform. Even the ABC debate had a few insightful moments once the moderators asked about the issues.
In any case, as a viewer of this great race, I was pleased to read an article like this, and even happier that it came from someone like Elizabeth Edwards.
