The greatest story on earth

I'm having difficulty following Richard Cohen's logic, or, perhaps I should say, I'm having difficulty following the logic of what he accepts as a logical situation. There's this:

For all the blather, there’s not all that much the White House can do about the economy. It can nudge and it can tug, but the economy goes its own way. A jobs program would help, but Congress won’t pass it. More deficit spending would help, but Congress won’t allow it. The government is tied up in knots.

And then there's this:

One network news executive says they’re seeing viewers flee politics.... When politics come up, the ratings show a real dip in viewership.

So here we have one of the world's leading economies and the most powerful government on earth and the oldest democracy in the cosmos, for all we know, being held hostage by a bunch of political terrorists in Congress--in short, all the elements of a best-selling Tom Clancy thriller, with a black Harrison Ford at the virtuous helm--and yet what are television viewers doing? They're "flee[ing] politics" (probably to watch a Clancy thriller) and "click[ing] off, stupefied by a campaign that has one overriding issue, the economy"--that is, the one issue that voters and viewers consistently say is of the greatest interest to them.

Something's amiss, and it's not terribly hard to identify at least a good chunk of the problem.

Granted, television executives should never treat news as part of the entertainment division, yet viewers may be missing the intense drama of current politics largely because network news executives habitually suck the legitimate intensity out of the drama. To repeat, America is being held hostage by a bunch of political terrorists in Congress, and that, just about any way you cut it, is a pretty big and very exciting story. These terrorists have been setting off bombs for nearly four years; they've extorted and bullied the nation, they've sabotaged the recovery, they've declared it's either their way or the apocalypse--and the network news executives know who they are.

This is no unidentified bunch of terrorists. It's not as though they emerge every few days in black hoods to issue cryptic demands, with dynamite strapped to their waists and a dagger at Harry Reid's throat and a twisting, squirming Nancy Pelosi trying to escape their dastardly grip. The news execs know who they are, the news execs know what they want, and it's no mystery how they're going about getting it: They are devastating the economy, even though we also know that "A jobs program would help ... [and] More deficit spending would help." In other words, the White House could do something to alleviate the crisis.

But there are these terrorists, you see.

Isn't that a pretty dramatic--even a spellbinding--story? If told honestly?

Comments

[japa21]

Unfortunately, the media and those terrorists are in cahoots. They both have the same goal in mind: profits for the long term. Plus, they both have the same paymasters.
True, the story you propose might have short term profitability, but it won't hold up long term.

[Susan Zoon]

The problem is that it's all too real, not Tom Clancey, and those of us who have been awake to all of this from as far back as we can remember feel as though we have gotten our PHD in rat-bastardry from watching the Republicans destroy this Democracy. I feel that I know more, in some cases, then the left wing journalists that are constantly hammering me with their dazzling wit and cynicism. I just can't take it anymore. I don't need any of these people haranguing me. My boat has been taking on water for five years now. WHERE'S THE PLAN?

Anyone?

Want me to watch again? (I'm looking at you MSNBC)... start talking solutions. Start interviewing people with a plan, instead of propping up false narratives.

Hubert Humphrey once said (Yes... Humphrey)," The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously."

[Robert Lipscomb]

Here is what the "typical swing voter" sees.

We hired George's son, but he and his associates were a disaster.

So, we fired that company and hired the smart guy from their competitor.

He's pretty good, but he went off on a tangent about insurance when the problem was jobs. So, we fired a bunch of his associates and replaced them with som real go-getters from the competition.

Instead of helping fix things, these guys went nuts and have gummed up the works. The nice smart young man still seems to be doing as best he can and has really been focused on jobs since we fired a bunch of his associates.

The competitors of the nice smart man say they have a really smart man who will do a much better job than the nice smart man. But this guy hangs around with the hooligans I plan to fire, and he doesn't seem to be so smart or nice.

So, I think I will re-hire the nice smart man and fire a bunch of the assholes we hired a couple of years ago.

I sure hope it all works out.

Now, I will go watch "Dancing With The Stars".

Fools like me want to believe their decisions will be based on extensive research and sound critical thinking. Yeah - right.

[Peter G]

Might I ask what you meant by "the most powerful government on earth"? Would that be the ability to militarily lay waste? No argument there. Influence world economics? There is none more powerful. Get important shit done? Really?

[Janicket]

Remember the phrase "pitiful helpless giant", Peter G?

Though I doubt its author ever envisioned it being used in this context.