Media Razzle Dazzle
Several years I read about a clever carny game called Razzle. The Razzle player throws darts at a board and receives a score. The rules for scoring are complicated and confusing, but they are plainly displayed. When he reaches a certain total, say 100 points, he wins a big prize like a color TV.
What makes this game a diabolically clever con is that for the beginning portion of the game the operator artificially inflates the player's score. The player is handing over a lot of money for the darts, but he doesn't mind because his score is steadily going up. Once the player is about halfway to the finish line, the operator begins a regime of strict scoring. The rules are actually stacked against the player, and he hardly gets any more points. The player gets suspicious, and insists that the operator tally his score aloud. Since the operator is clearly following the rules, he doesn't see any grounds for complaint. Either he waits for his "good luck" to return, or quietly gives up.
I am sure that I am not the only lefty who felt Razzled by the media when George Bush came on the scene. We were all used to being treated to titillating Clinton "scandals" that often depended on rumors or anonymous sources, or simply served no purpose besides embarrassing the Clintons. Once the Bush campaign picked up steam and it looked like he was going to be President, the media decided to practice the journalistic equivalent of prudery. Accusations about Smirky had to be backed up with a smoking gun, and it wasn't enough for his alleged misdeeds to be simply embarrassing or show character flaws, they had to be inarguably illegal. (As Al Gore unfortunately put it once, there had to be a "controlling legal authority".) I hasten to point out that snorting coke and driving drunk are both quite illegal, and the drug thing came up early on.
If anything, the Razzle analogy is generous to the librul media, because the Razzle rules are unambiguous and clearly displayed. The rules for good journalism are more like the mysterious laws in Kafka's The Trial. Everyone hears about them, but damned if they ever get explained clearly. Even the rather mercenary ideal of giving the public what it wants is largely a smoke screen . Phil Donahue got better ratings than Chris Matthews, but MSNBC used "poor ratings" as an excuse to can him anyway. Instead of proclaiming that "We give the people what they want", they should proclaim "We know who butters our bread." Both are pretty cynical statements, but the second one would at least be honest.
Woody 
9:14:08 PM 
|
|
