Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00481)

Well,

Since Bart brings up this possibility, I will comment on the book I just finished and try to relate it to a buddhi-manasic perspective. It's about US politics but has a much broader application IMO. The book is The Nightly News Nightmare: Network Television's Coverage of the U.S. Presidential Elections, 1988-2000, by Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter. My reason for reading it was an anguished sense that the major news media in the US had turned into unquestioning supporters of GW Bush and company, and contemptuously dismissive of Gore, Clinton, and Democrats in general, to the point that our two party system was in danger of being destroyed by media bias. This book offers careful analysis of media bias and shortcomings over a 12-year period. It did not cover anything after November 2000, which is when this problem began in my opinion. But it offers detailed and persuasive analysis of media bias over the previous 12 years. They analyzed all major network coverage of all presidential candidates as either 1) horse-race or substantive 2) negative or positive 3) amount of time allowed candidates and came to horrifying conclusions.

Over the years the networks have offered an overwhelmingly negative and cynical approach to US presidential politics. In the year leading up to the 1992 election, 73% of the coverage of GWH Bush was negative. In the year following, the coverage of Bill Clinton was-- get this-- 73% negative. Over the 12 year period, the amount of time candidates were allowed to speak on air-- the "sound bite" length-- steadily shrank to 7.8 *seconds* per broadcast, while the amount of time reporters spoke cynically *about* candidates steadily rose. Moreover, the coverage of substantive issues vs. horse-race analysis has steadily shrunk, so that *everything* is interpreted according to strategy rather than policy. Finally, there is an attack-the-frontrunner mentality that resulted in 2000 in this startling fact: when Bush was ahead in September, coverage of Gore was far more positive than Bush; when Gore was ahead in the polls by October 1, coverage became much more positive for Bush than for Gore. They were just out to attack whomever was ahead, to demonstate their destructive power.

Tying this to Bart's comments about buddhi-manas vs. kama-manas. As a Democrat, my feeling that my party is facing an impossible uphill battle due to pervasive pro-Republican media bias was kama-manasic. My desires have been thwarted big time. But reading this book I realized that the last minute pro-Bush tilt by the media was symptomatic of much larger patterns that are dangerous and destructive to American democracy in general, not just to Democratic candidates.

So now, seeing what is (deservedly IMO) happening with media coverage of Lott, and the Kissinger resignation, and the firings of Pitt, Lindsey, and O'Neill, I find it hard to jump for schadenfreude. Because while for now the other side is targeted by the negative, cynical, sensationalistic media, I know that as soon as Democrats get back into power the same forces will immediately target them.

Isn't the essence of rising from kama-manas t buddhi-manas seeing your personal reversals as part of a pattern that affects everyone? 

Cheers,

Paul, trying to approach politics theosophically