Throw The Bums Out

In the wake of last Tuesday’s elections the press has coalesced into a near monotonic dispenser of conventional witless-dom. Pundit after pundit repeated the hackneyed, lazy analysis that the election results reflect a single-minded expression of anti-incumbency on the part of voters. The headlines from newspapers and television shout the same shallow conclusion that the people just want to “throw the bums out.” Perhaps they do, but it isn’t the bums that you’re thinking about.

Whatever the media platform, the stories were uniform across every ideological slant. Here is short sampling of the so-called wisdom from Punditville:

  • Los Angeles Times: Tuesday elections: bad for incumbents
  • Washington Post: Incumbent Armageddon?
  • Fox News: Anti-Incumbent Fever Hits America
  • ABC News: Victories for Joe Sestak, Rand Paul Signal Voters’ Anti-Incumbent Mood
  • Baltimore Sun: Incumbents have reason to worry in November

The only problem with these analyses is that they are not founded in reality. To be sure, there are sectors of the electorate who are opposed to anyone tainted with the scent of Washington. But many of the victors in Tuesday’s primaries were veterans of public service who, therefore, could not have won because of some mythic Washington virginity.

If there is a problem with incumbency, it isn’t with office-holders. It’s with pundits. The very people who are complaining about how length of service is detrimental to the service provided have themselves been serving for decades as columnists and commentators. They accuse legislators of losing touch with the public, but ignore their own separation from the common folk they purport to be representing and informing.

How many decades have people like Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, David Broder, Howard Kurtz, Judith Miller, David Gergen, Thomas Friedman, etc., been peddling their views? Why are they supposed to be considered immune to the DC infection, while lawmakers are presumed to suffer from it chronically? Most of these veteran pundits have been proven to wrong so often that it’s hard to fathom why anyone would take their opinions seriously.

The recurring spectacle of twenty year veteran pundits disparaging twenty year veteran politicians for having been around too long, without any hint of irony, is a symptom of our broken media. At least the politicians have to come before the voters from time to time to get their status renewed. The pundits just keep coming back, year after year, despite their tenure and their bias and their failures, simply because the only votes cast for them are by their colleagues who are all members of the same club.

It would be interesting if there were a way to democratize the press. Make the pundits stand for reelection every couple of years. Hold them accountable for their records. Allow smarter, more insightful analysts to campaign for the few jobs available in mass media. Can you imagine it? Bob Cesca or Joan Walsh could challenge Sean Hannity or Chris Matthews for control of those programs by comparing their political prognostications. Markos Moulitsas could run for James Carville’s job on the Situation Room. Maybe even I could take over Kurtz’s column at the Washington Post and begin hosting Reliable Sources.

Obviously, nothing like that is going to happen. The decision makers are too ensconced in their fiefdoms and would not relinquish that power. And in the event that somebody makes the argument that the market will decide these things, first explain to me how Wolf Blitzer still has a job. What market principle is responsible for that?

So the mantra in political circles to “throw the bums out” is a good one. So long as it applies to the bums in the press. That’s where the most damage is being done by people who weren’t elected to represent anyone and who are never subject to evaluation based on their work.

If we had professional, ethical, honest journalists populating the newsrooms in America, we wouldn’t have to wade through stories about “death panels” and lesbian Supreme Court nominees. We wouldn’t have to balance facts with fables. We wouldn’t be treating the Tea Party as if it were actually significant. And we wouldn’t have so many Americans misinformed about easily confirmable matters like the President’s national origins.

Advertisement:

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink. Short URL: https://wp.me/p4Ijg-qF

4 thoughts on “Throw The Bums Out

  1. Howard Fineman: and I usually happen to agree with his TV commentary, while never reading his essays.

    • I tried to list those who were perpetually wrong. Fineman has a mixed record. He’s a little too inside the beltway, but not as clueless as say Kristol.

  2. Maybe the pundits could use the point spread system like football gamblers do. With less reporting and corporate domination, were going to have to rely on people like Mark, and Bob Cesca, and a thousand other blogs and hope they keep it straight.

Comments are closed.