Colbert For President No Questions Asked

MediaMatters.com posted an excellent commentary that examines the media's reaction to the announced run for President (at least in South Carolina) by Stephen Colbert. This is where the site shines, showing the failures of the media (now if only would expand that to cover all media, regardless of political leanings).

In this commentary, writer Eric Boehlert notes the joy that the political commentators and media have had over Stephen Colbert. They laugh at the joke, sometimes participate in it, and generally just have a high old time without asking the critical questions you would expect from the media. Like is it legal (finally asked here). Is this joke good for the country (not sure yet on that one). Basically, he wonders why they are not doing their job.

I wonder the same thing, especially based on this recent report from Journalism.org that noticed the overall lack of information gathered by the media about the Presidential candidates. Some have focused on the subjective "positive" vs "negative" nature of the articles to paint a liberal media bias which I think is a false question. When reporting that John McCain didn't raise as much money as projected or falling behind other candidates, is that a negative or positive story? Is the expectation not to report it all?

That seems to be the problem though, the press is reporting on the "sexy" news, not the relevant news. Based on their study, "In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found."

Only 16% of all stories covers what truly matters; what the candidate says they will do as President and what their previous records indicates they will actually do. Only 16% covers this area. With primaries around the corner, how does a voter make a informed decision? How does the strategy to win help make this decision? How does knowing the potential first wives are hot help? What does the usually nonsense about being the son of a farmer blah blah blah have to do with their ability to lead the country?

The problem, as the commentary pointed out, is the media's decision to treat the candidates as celebrities rather then future leaders of the free world. Basically they are treated no different then Britney Spears despite the fact they are different, dramatically different. Britney's decisions effect herself and her kids. The President's decisions can quite literally effect the entire world. The reporting should reflect the difference in scale but doesn't.

As is often the case nowadays, it seems laziness and money is driving how the reporting is done. Research is difficult, collating research even more difficult, but commenting about a haircut, that is easy. Read a blob blurb about it and the reporters are good to go. No effort needed.

Money is driven by readership and viewership and sadly the average American has demonstrated they want the sensational over the factual. They complain otherwise but their actions disprove the words. Of course the media tries to fill that need (hence talk of haircuts). The news though should strive to be more then infotainment. They should strive to inform, even when people don't want it.

The press is often called the fourth branch of government. The ones that watch the watchers. They failed us in the build up to Iraq. Will they fail us again in the quest to entertain?