Control the Conversation

The way people communicate is directly affected by the technology available to them, but this is particularly evident in politics. As technology advances further and further, bringing more and more complex technology to the masses, the way politics are discussed changes. We rely on the news and on-the-ground reporting to give us the day-to-day goings on in things like political campaigns; some of this reporting is from newspapers, but a lot of it now comes from television (particularly 24-hr cable news) and the internet (things like live blogging and Twitter).

We didn’t always have technology. Campaigning used to be about meeting as many people as possible face-to-face. As technology has changed and evolved, so has campaign strategy and who/where we voters expect to get our information from. In allowing this technology to flourish, we’ve accepted a certain dichotomy: some good side effects and some bad ones. PRO: More free-flowing information means better informed voters. CON: The media controls what gets reported.

The fact of the matter is we trust the media a lot more than they trust us, their viewers. They think of it as part of their job as to separate the chaff from the wheat, or to separate the important goings on from the unimportant. The reporters get to decide what goes in their reports, and the writers decide what is worthy of  being included in their word count; Executives get to decide what to cut when they’re a few minutes heavy – the list goes on.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – I mean, editing happens. It’s just a fact of the situation. What worries me is how much trust we’ve placed in the media as a whole. We tend to put everyone on the same playing field, and assume that they all are telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That’s just not true. Not all news sources should be created equal. It’s a business after all, and everyone has money at stake. Some places have bottom line in mind more than others, and some have different ‘journalistic ethics’ than others. I won’t get into specifics, but I think the people on a whole need to become more sketpical consumers of media.

In essence, it’s about striking a balance. It’s about being as aware as possible of the interests of the parties at hand. It’s admitting that the media is made up of people, and that people are fallible and have opinions. It’s why I’d rather watch MSNBC for 2 hours and then Fox for 2 hours than CNN for 4. It’s why I love the watchdog nature of some media outlets – the tendency to hold people responsible for their mistakes and make them correct them.

So if you want to have fun little political media experiment, bounce around among the channels during the South Carolina returns. Go to a lot of different websites, different channels, different newspapers – see what each one is saying. Remember that just because one network says one thing and the other one doesn’t say anything doesn’t mean that one network is wrong, or that one network is purposefully excluding something. Be skeptical and discerning, use your gut. If something feels wrong, smells fishy, it probably is. By listening actively and being concerned, you control a bigger portion of the conversation than you would if you were passive.

AND Thanks Elliot for your comment. I hope you’re entertained.