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