The media summer of 2000 is now history. As leaves begin to fall,
let's consider a few key dynamics of the political season that has just passed.
Despite complaints about smarmy orchestration and chronic
pandering, the Republican and Democratic conventions resulted in gobs of
deferential coverage. Some journalists rolled their eyes or even shed a bit
of light on the big money bags behind the Oz-like curtains, but each party
got what its backers paid for -- a week of mostly upbeat publicity.
Meanwhile, Americans saw very little news about the iron-fist
tactics that police used in the host cities to suppress thousands of
social-justice demonstrators. Evidently, several days of militarizing a
downtown area is the latest new thing for laying down the political law.
In Philadelphia, while the Grand Old Party partied, police raided
a protest headquarters. The gendarmes proceeded to confiscate and destroy
large numbers of handmade puppets being readied for deployment in the
streets. The crackdown was understandable, since art can be subversive.
Better to be on the safe side!
Two weeks later, in Los Angeles, the Democratic show unfolded with
frequent boasts of authentic inclusion. At the same time, outside Staples
Center, the decidedly "unincluded" ran gauntlets of locked-down
thoroughfares and rubber bullets. The American Civil Liberties Union
quickly pointed out that police were targeting journalists for physical
attack. But freedom prevailed: Demonstrators were invited to assemble in a
designated "protest zone."
Realpolitik smarties seem to have convinced most reporters and
pundits that the era of big government is -- or at least should be -- over.
Evidently, the downsizing of the public sector includes the First
Amendment. Don't worry, your One-Half Amendment rights are secure.
In the electoral arena, the "bipartisan" (translation: two-party
monopoly) Commission on Presidential Debates has upheld the notion that
small is beautiful. Narrow is great, too.
By mid-September, plans for the fall debates were just about
complete, with only George W. Bush and Al Gore scheduled to square off.
Most journalists seem happy with the match-up excluding Ralph Nader and
Patrick Buchanan.
Although quite a few daily newspapers around the country have
editorialized in favor of opening up the debates, elite national media seem
comfortable with sticking to the two-party nominees. Political humorist
Mark Russell gave voice to the prevailing media attitude: "Some say that
Nader and Buchanan should be included in the debates. And while we're at
it, let the Minor League Toledo Mudhens play in the World Series."
Ha ha. Well, that's settled.
However, a minor detail is worth noting. Most members of the
public -- also known as "the American people" in politicspeak -- remain
unenlightened about the virtues of confining the presidential debates to a
pair of corporate-friendly politicians. According to a new Zogby poll,
Reuters reports, "likely voters agree that third party candidates should
participate in the debates." When citizens were presented with a list of a
half-dozen potential participants, two of them -- Nader and Buchanan --
received majority support for inclusion.
As a public service, some commentators have done their best to
drive down the poll numbers of the third party candidate with the most
popular support. This summer, several widely syndicated columnists -- with
Anthony Lewis of The New York Times in the lead, followed by such thinkers
as The Boston Globe's Thomas Oliphant and The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne
-- went after Nader with liberal vengeance.
Not coincidentally, there has been scant media interest in probing
fundamental implications of the government's shoddy "regulatory" apparatus
that made the Bridgestone/Firestone tragedies possible. Although still
routinely tagged in news stories as a "consumer advocate," Nader and his
awesome grasp of such issues did not intersect with the mass media frame.
News accounts of the lethal Firestone debacle have detoured around
words like "crime" and "murder" -- which could be accurately applied to the
premeditated cover-up decisions made in high corporate places. By the time
autumn officially began, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
was saying that at least 103 people died and more than 400 others were
injured because of the defective tires.
"Corporate crime wave" doesn't exactly roll off the media tongue.
If a small group of thugs made decisions that caused the deaths of
more than a hundred Americans, the airwaves and editorial pages would be
filled with calls for severe punishment including long prison sentences or
even executions. After all, in medialand, we cannot tolerate crime in the
streets.
Crime in the suites is a very different matter.
It's so much easier to stick with bipartisan debates. Why
complicate the media picture?
Norman Solomon is a syndicated columnist. His latest book is The Habits of
Highly Deceptive Media.
