Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

The Problem with Political Reporters

Posted by on Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Less than a month ago, his was a presidency in trouble. Now, they're asking President Obama if he's "the comeback kid."

This fucking tendency to want to find a narrative ("narrative," by the way, is reporter-speak for "cliché") has got to stop at some point. He's the same president today as he was a month ago. These miraculous changes don't occur overnight. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that you don't measure a presidency in inches, but these little victories and defeats are what keeps all these unworthy jackasses employed.

Here's a wild thought: How about we don't rate presidencies as a series of victories and defeats? How about our "narrative" has to do with whether or not the country is heading in the right direction? And why don't we try to take the long view every once in a while? Everything about an Obama presidency can't be defined by previous presidents. Let Bill Clinton's tired "comeback kid" trope molder in the 90s, where it belongs. Things are more complicated now. Don't we deserve a more nuanced media, too?

I understand that this rant is on the verge of becoming a cliché ("Wah, wah, the media sucks," says a tiny, insignificant arm of the media) but my point, and I'm going to give it the unnecessary bold treatment because I think it's just that important, is this: If editors at news departments spent as much time stamping out clichés as editors of literary fiction do, this world would be a measurably better place.

(Unrelated: I have to point out that President Obama paraphrased Stan Lee by way of Spider-Man in today's press conference, which is totally awesome.)

 

Comments (25) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
gloomy gus 1
How about we be more selective in whose analysis we choose to read? With no sense of informed perspective, a reader determined to be an omnivore of punditry can wind up headspun pretty good.
Posted by gloomy gus on December 22, 2010 at 4:11 PM
Partly Cloudy 2
Good point, Paul. I agree.
Posted by Partly Cloudy on December 22, 2010 at 4:17 PM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 3
Aw, don't worry. Give it a couple months and he'll be the goat again.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on December 22, 2010 at 4:21 PM
Will in Seattle 4
Just think of political reporters the same way you do the TV reporters reporting Snowpocolypse 2010 and you'll realize they all rely on Fear and overblown buzzwords.

Meanwhile, we're still a third world country drowning in debt from multiple foreign wars of Republican adventure that serve only to enrich Red China at the American middle class' expense.

@3 for the insightful analysis win. Until the Republicants try to shut down the government.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on December 22, 2010 at 4:30 PM
5
So you're saying that the main stream media doesn't even qualify as good fiction? No argument from me.
Posted by Don't you think he looks tired? on December 22, 2010 at 4:33 PM
sevendaughters 6
This does play into the narrative of a few months ago, e.g. "remember that X president did badly in the mid-terms but got re-elected."
Posted by sevendaughters on December 22, 2010 at 4:35 PM
7
Why don't we start with Savage's whining about Obama?
Posted by Prospero on December 22, 2010 at 4:57 PM
8
Amen, Paul. I constantly think this very same thing every time the narrative shifts. News outlets (including the Stranger, sometimes) need to called out on perpetuating this whole win-lose, up-down way of discussing politics. it drives me insane that sometimes I don't feel anymore educated about a policy or social problem by the end of an article than when I started, but I know who got a good jab into the other side.
Posted by bookworm on December 22, 2010 at 5:01 PM
TVDinner 9
OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST. A SOCIALIST!
Posted by TVDinner http:// on December 22, 2010 at 5:18 PM
disintegrator 10
1.) Excellent point. But how often does the "can't we all just stop with the hysterics" point really end up resonating with the media?

2.) The Googlebook (which is what I choose to call it) has made you into a Slog-posting machine, hasn't it?
Posted by disintegrator http://bottlevariation.blogspot.com on December 22, 2010 at 5:45 PM
11
We also wouldn't have many news stories at all....
Posted by RDM on December 22, 2010 at 6:38 PM
seandr 12
Well said.
Posted by seandr on December 22, 2010 at 6:42 PM
13
After the election, I put myself on a media diet. I turned off NPR. Yes, that's right, I turned off NPR. I've turned it on again once in a while, but I'm trying only to listen to the entertainment programs (yay Wait Wait and TAL!). What would be the impact if we all decided to refuse to consume the pap they give us (not that NPR is all pap, but you know, my point is that it is my major news source, and that's what I need to eliminate). I think the hardest thing would be to get the FOX News listening crowd to give it up. But in my heart, I like to believe that there's a bunch of them who are as sick of it as we are.
Posted by ScreenName on December 22, 2010 at 6:47 PM
Asparagus! 14
Everything Paul writes is thick with narrative.
Posted by Asparagus! on December 22, 2010 at 7:00 PM
15
"National Desk! What's the headline?"
"Same as for the last six months boss: 'Slow Progress Being Made.' "
"Love it! Print that baby!"

*****MEANWHILE, AT THE TV STATION ACROSS TOWN***********************************
"Well, boss, it looks like the paper scooped us again with another 'Slow Progress' story."
"Damn them! Do we have any footage for that? Maybe we can give it a human angle"
"No. There's no footage."
"Well, what do we have?"
"We've got footage of a water-skiing squirrel."
"We've got our lead story! Teasers on the hour and half-hour starting at noon."
Posted by Proteus on December 22, 2010 at 7:45 PM
16
npr is nothing but another schill for soros maybe not quite as much as the huffy post , but he gives them millions to do his bidding. npr is just as for sale as any other medium . don't kid your selves they have been bought and pimped.
Posted by THE ERIC CARTMAN on December 22, 2010 at 8:25 PM
watchout5 17
I tried to watch some politics the other day on MSNBC.com and it was almost 100% fluff. Nothing was reported on the massive pieces of legislation that just passed. It's all, "OMG HOW WONDERFUL IS OBAMA FOR DOING EVERYTHING" instead of, "Hey we just spent record amounts of money on tax cuts, we're spending another how many billion on Afghanistan for how many years?, we just passed a food safety bill without any new regulations on factory farms". Look I understand that things like DADT are important, but when the haze clears it would be awesome if someone in this fucking world besides Amy Goodwin actually report some real fucking truth. I don't want to hear about stupid fucking polls that never include cell phone users about how awesome people respond when you ask them if they like money. It's not fucking news, it doesn't mean anything, and unless we start reporting on reality, instead of what we hope reality to be, maybe we'll get to the bottom of why our congress continues to rubber stamp corporate bullshit.
Posted by watchout5 http://www.overclockeddrama.com on December 22, 2010 at 10:55 PM
18
Yes. Well said!
Posted by augurgirl http://dearmrpresident365.blogspot.com on December 23, 2010 at 1:03 AM
19 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
20
Isn't this the same blog that polled on whether folks would "take Obama back" after the DADT repeal?
Posted by faithful reader on December 23, 2010 at 6:36 AM
21
While I think the whole narrative thing has been around as long as journalism (at least, sensationalistic journalism) has been around, I think the advent of 24/7 cable news has made things a million times worse, because the only way to fill up all that time and seemingly keep people "informed" with the most "up-to-date information" is to continually dissect and analyze fairly minimal information about an event, over and over again. While I've always been bugged by this, it was last year's obsessive coverage of Tiger Woods' "accident" outside his house (later revealed to be an adultery confrontation, but at the time, was presented as an accident for several days, during which nothing new developed), that I realized how taking one tiny occurrence and analyzing it to death is what nearly all news has become.

I will say the one news show I watch is the Newshour on PBS. It's generally pretty good about giving you some substantive content to digest, and then moving on. But that's partially because it's a weekday daily show, with a finite timeframe -- they have to be particular and make choices about what to cover, and generally, don't have the pressure of stringing people along to sell advertising. The same can't really be said of NPR, since they are a 24/7 station that requires continual content, even if they are recycling info over and over.
Posted by bookworm on December 23, 2010 at 9:36 AM
22
#14:
"Everything Paul writes is thick with narrative."
Thank you! Paul is the worst offender. (See, e.g., every single post on the "brainy" Newt Gingrich.) Is it possible he is that lacking in self-awareness? I mean, right here in this post, he suggests substituting the current narrative with a different one!
Posted by bobbo on December 23, 2010 at 10:32 AM
Dougsf 23
Totally agree, but the Word of the Year is still going to be "cable."
Posted by Dougsf on December 23, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Timrrr 24
Well said, Paul, but nevertheless...

#7 FTW!
Posted by Timrrr on December 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM
kk in seattle 25
Ha! See Mudede post above ("shocked" at Obama's progress), complete with Sloggers whining about how shitty our president is. Really makes me want them to live for the next eight years in Jesusland with McCain/Palin.
Posted by kk in seattle on December 23, 2010 at 11:11 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy