Letter: Student reflects on media coverage of election, urges others to 'move on'

11/19/08 - To the Cigar, After reading the comprehensive letter regarding McCain and the plight of the Republican Party by Frank LiVolsi, I began to reminisce about the elections.

I think this election was important, but not because it was an obvious and pivotal social landmark in American history or the end of George W. Bush's mild debacle.

I think this election showed the American people how ridiculous the media is. In a lot of ways, for me, this election wasn't about the candidates at all. It was about coloring in states on a big map.

I am assuming Rhode Island was colored blue because people here support Smurfs and ocean creatures, like whales.

The election for me really emphasized breakthrough hologram technology as well as giant touch screens that are incredibly awesome.

I remember vividly media overlords, like CNN and MSNBC, during the campaigning months, providing the American public with extensive, exhaustive and seamless coverage. Each professed to be the ultimate reference, the only trusting source, essentially the all-seeing gypsy prophet woman in the tent with the crystal ball.

I enjoy watching CSPAN and CSPAN-2 because of their lack of graphics. They broadcast politics in its most raw and elegant form - blank rooms, and people talking.

The rooms are also usually old. When I see the Senate convening on H.R.5714, I don't want to see little rotating icons, colors or tickers.

Whomever thought marquees of moving text with limited information was a good idea, other than for the stock market or entertainment, was hopelessly wrong.

They are probably well-paid and not looking at tickers anyway. Even the word "ticker" is annoying.

Panels of talking people are important in political coverage. In addition to my dilemma as an American citizen to vote for the individual who would best serve my moral and social interests, I had to choose which panel of people would give me the most reputable and important information.

How many political experts and analysts are there in the world anyway? Thousands? Millions? If I were an anchor, I would enlist 400 analysts and have them riding in a blimp above the studio.

That way, whenever I referenced them I could say, "and now we go to our expert political correspondents, who are hovering in the Decision '08 airship at an altitude of 3,000 feet."

They would also be forced to live there with limited food rations and entertainment, to condition them to be better analysts over time. On Nov. 4, I was happy to vote.

I hoped after I did vote, most of the political debauchery, the over-analysis and the whole media-driven, poll-fueled, contrived campaign coverage machine-beast would stall like an old tractor in a potato field.

Of course, in the days following, the media recruited an assortment of post-election "analysts" to poop themselves over what happened.

The media was clever in recruiting an equal number of analysts that saw the election as a victory or as a mess.

Nothing that happens on any of those programs is coincidental.

Now I'm almost convinced that even the news happens for ratings.

Two weeks later, the whole political bedlam is far from over.

The machine-beast-tractor is trying to chug further on the remaining droplets of election propaganda.

I think if we are to progress in this country, we need to move on, and start talking about what we are going to do, not what could have been done, or what should have been done.

With the election buzz over, now we have time and patience to tackle the many problems and situations that are predominant and crucial. Let's give election analysis a break and our new presidential-elect the chance he deserves.



Will Johnson