Monday, April 28, 2008

Greed is Good

There was an editorial by Elizabeth Edwards in The New York Times yesterday, entitled "Bowling 1, Health Care 0," where she criticized the press for focusing on Barack Obama's bowling score instead of more worthwhile subjects like Joe Biden's health care plan. She seems to be saying that the press is more inclined to chase stories that it deems exciting rather than stories that are more substantive. An example of press-think: Barack Obama is much more interesting than "just another old white guy" Chris Dodd so we will act like Chris Dodd doesn't even exist. I agree with Mrs. Edwards' observations completely except for one thing. She thinks this is a bad thing and I think it is inevitable.

Should we be surprised that newspaper companies want to sell more newspapers? We shouldn't be. Newspaper companies want to make money first. Of course they will tell us stuff like they are in it for the public good. If they think this line of b.s. will sell a few more newspapers, why not say it? By all accounts, fewer and fewer newspapers are sold every year. I kind of feel like every newspaper I read will be the last one I will ever read. Just like people a hundred years ago took one last ride in a horse-drawn carriage before they disappeared forever. If Barack Obama's picture on the front page sells a few more newspapers, can you blame the newspaper companies for highlighting him over other so-called "boring" presidential candidates like Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter and Mike Gravel?

We hear conservatives constantly bemoan the "liberal mainstream media" and "liberal elites out of Hollywood." The strange thing about this argument is that the media and Hollywood are both pretty pure "supply and demand" institutions. (I remember a day when conservatives talked about "supply and demand" and "free markets" and it was almost believable. Now they make me laugh when they talk about such things.) The media and Hollywood don't create a product and hope the public likes them. They aren't pushing any kind of agenda. The media and Hollywood think about what the public wants and then tries to create a product to satisfy them. If this is done right, there is a whole lot of money to be made. Money is it. That is what media companies and Hollywood studios care about. They aren't trying to push a liberal agenda. If pushing a conservative agenda sold, I think they would sell that too. But that just doesn't sell these days. They are looking out for their bank accounts. Everybody needs money. That's why they call it money, I guess.

Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. Most of us are doing the same thing on a smaller scale. Heck, I daydream about how much money I am going to make as a lawyer so that I can retire to Italy. Elizabeth Edwards is criticizing the press for not being serious about covering the presidential campaign. I wish I existed in a world where the press existed to inform a public wanting to be informed in a substantive way. But that ship has sailed. Maybe the press never existed to serve the greater good.

I also doubt if the public wants to know much more than Mr. Obama's bowling score or which campaign volunteer Hillary Clinton chewed out today. Sadly we are a nation of Jaywalkers. Have we become a country led by elites? Yes we have.

1 comment:

Anthony S. said...

I wrote about this about a few weeks ago, Thomas. I wrote about the advent of the newspaper from Walter Benjamin's "The Author as Producer". Here is the link to his essay on literary technique:

http://pdflibrary.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/walter-benjamin_-the-author-as-producer.pdf


And here is my short explication of it:


http://anthonyscoggins.blogspot.com/2008/04/reader-as-author-as-producer-as-people.html

Check it out.