The Media's Role in it All
November 10, 2000
7:38 a.m.
Not a lot of time this morning--fixating on this election is ripping into my sleep time, which is eating into my writing time. It is a fascinating thing in that car wreck sort of way, isn't it. Here's the scoop from my corner. We are an impatient society. We want closure. And without a firm footing on what is reality, many of us are doing a great deal of teeth gnashing. The media is feeding kerosene to the flames. I mean, they are the ones spending entire evenings asking pointless questions--"What do you think should be done if ...?" is a pointless question for a journalist to ask because it really doesn't matter a great deal what the average person thinks about that. Don't get me wrong. This is America, and I think everyone has an important right to speak here. But the process of what can happen is pretty clear and simple. The bottom line is this. First, we let people finish counting the votes. After that is done, we deal with any lawsuit anyone wants to file. A judge will rule whatever the judge will rule. The electors will do whatever the electors do. Then we'll have a President. The problem is that we're too impatient to let the process finish. And the media has no care for facts. For example--the AP numbers show a 229 vote difference with all but one county reporting. The state is showing a 1,200 vote difference with 54 of 67 counties reporting. Why the difference? Well, the State says they are worried about the accuracy of some of the numbers. They aren't including the new numbers until they're sure of the accuracy. But 229 is a more exciting number than 1,200. Guess which was plastered on the CNN screen all night last night. To heck with whether they're right or not. Last night, Lisa said that she thought they might have learned a few lessons over the past few days. And they have. They've learned that people will stay riveted to their TV screens if they let fanatics on both side have open microphones to spout controversial drivel. I'm sure advertising rates are way up. But think about something for a minute. Why is it that when a new fact is discussed, it's always a political party that is bringing it to light? Isn't finding and reporting fact really supposed to be the journalist's role? Shouldn't someone in the media should be putting together data. Shouldn't some investigative journalist actually report what the voting trends for Buchannan, and for disqualifications, and whatnot have been over the past five or ten elections rather than merely reporting what each political party says they are? Shouldn't an investigative journalist/analyst go out and find out how many other states/counties have butterfly ballots, and what their experience with disqualification/confusion has been? Politicians are paid to obscure the other side's viewpoint to help bring out their own. Whether we like that fact or not this is their job description, and they are doing it well. Journalists/analysts are paid, I think, to bring a sense of clarity to the situation. But instead of reporting what is or has been, today's media reports what might be if. It's all very fascinating, and a little scary.   A voting return of another kind is happening, though. Word comes this morning that my story "Stealing the Sun," has been placed on the preliminary Nebula ballot by a comfortable margin. I'm obviously pleased, but note that it hasn't done me much good so far as the story I'm working on! [grin]. Have a great day.  If I don't make it to the final ballot, I promise not to fight the results Daily Persistence is © Ron Collins |
|
Nearing the end of "Ghandi" -- draft 2 |
BACK TO 
|