HCJ-L Archives

May 2007

HCJ-L@HUNTER.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Peter Parisi <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Tue, 1 May 2007 11:09:32 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (60 lines)
I'm sure that the near total silence that greeted my recent posting of
a "fun quiz" was the sound of the members of this list holding their
breath in excited anticipation of the answer.

Well here it is, along with a bit on why the answer matters.

To refresh memories, the question was:

When The New York Times story on the Democratic presidential debate
calls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "the two most closely watched
candidates," who exactly is doing this "close watching"?

It sounds like it refers to the public, no? But if you think about it,
the answer is, not the public, but journalists themselves.

To be sure, Clinton and Obama are the leading fundraisers, but it is
not established as fact that the _public_ is most engrossed with them.

Isn't it a reasonable supposition that many people, bless their
hearts, tune in to the debate with open minds?

After all, as we noted the other day, John Edwards had shown real
strength in the Iowa polls and had issued a detailed plan for
universal health coverage. Dennis Kucinich was clearly the most
radical of the group (he has called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq
and for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney), and people
might want to see what he was about. Until that evening, I had no real
knowledge of the former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, who was
surprisingly abrasive toward the rest of the field. What's his story?
And so on for other candidates.

It is simply not established that the public is as totally engrossed
with Clinton and Obama as The Times reporters assert as fact.

What we do know is that day after day journalists' center their
attention predominantly on those two candidates, while the
personalities and policy positions of the rest of the field get scant
notice. This fascination with the "horse race" between the "leaders,"
(which helps to maintain their standing as "leaders") frustrates many
curious citizens and threatens robust democratic process.

So this insignificant phrase is interesting because it shows
journalists converting into objective fact what is an active
interpretive choice of their own. In the process they contribute to
their own mystification and to the mystification of the public.

(Obviously, a vast deal more could be said about all these issues. If
this kind of stuff interests you, consider taking Journalism &
Society).


-- 
Peter Parisi, Ph.D.
Dept. of Film & Media Studies
Hunter College
695 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10021
212-772-4949
"People don't change. They just find out who they are." -- Ray Skean

ATOM RSS1 RSS2