Copyright 2004 Ben S. Pollock
Friday, July 16, 2004: I see it as a void, a vacuum that nature abhors, that will be filled no matter what. Its name I don’t know: Maybe it’s so obvious I cannot pin it down. If so, I hope it is not trite, like, "Life, kid."
It is the span in public affairs between the event and the journalist, photographer, logger. (I asked a seasoned journalist yesterday about this, likely over- or understating it, and probably presented this in the wrong forum, a public one. Oy, that’s my usual mistake, but it seemed to fit in the overall discussion, especially because the big boss is famously one to consider things deeply.)
An event happens, of great importance like a vote or minor impact like the initial opinion of an official about said vote. The scribe records and summarizes it then publishes it, in any medium.
Between the news and the news gatherer, then, is said void. Which is gone before time begins, being a vacuum, filled with gossip, angles, spin, jokes, anger, attempts at persuasion and manipulation, ego, time-wasting and fear.
The void now comprises all of the news commentary talk shows. They’ve been aired around the clock for a good dozen years (CNN) and on multiple cable TV channels for half that (talking about nationally accepted years, not since creation). There is the Internet for half that (yes, Web logs are a form of e-mail and that’s been around for 30-plus years but this intends age of common acceptance). Rush Limbaugh and as if suddenly, but he’s been around a while, too, Michael Moore, having an impact on or for the other wing. Leno, Letterman, Jon Stewart.
Journalists do all of this work of accurate and clear reporting — which includes attempts at fairness, impartiality and objectivity — along with some vision/version of restrained and professional presentation and then down the drain it goes, into the void.
The void told people Al Gore lost those debates in 2000, not the responsible news media. The void decided Howard Dean’s peppy cheer last spring was an out-of-control scream, not journalists. The record showed that Gore was instrumental in some legislation organizing the Internet, but the void ratified "I invented. …" The void gave Dan Quayle a childlike image. The void convicted O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, and the void forgot so many other second-rate or former stars. Did Robert Blake ever get a trial? No, none of us should care about that stuff, but it is the talk of the dinner table and coffee shop. Princess Diana was divorced out of royalty, and no more a philanthropist that hundreds of other aristocrats or billionaires, but when great numbers of people create memorials in their own towns to her, journalists better report that, too.
My question remains, if by restraint and professionalism we maintain credibility both now and for the history books, are we doing any good, when the void regurgitates the knowledge into acceptable pabulum? It’s not just news, it’s the fodder of medical treatments, of low-carb carbohydrates, of what schools should be teaching etc.
Journalists cannot manage the void. Those that do deserve the laughingstock reputation they quickly acquire, for they too have been labeled by the void. But are journalists abdicating responsibility by ignoring the void? Did Ed Muskie really lose control? What kind of conservative or Republican was Dick Nixon?
Journalists should not leave to the void anything that it does not care to handle. Di’s little shrines showed what people oddly care about. The news media left to the void Saddam’s relationship to Osama bin Laden, essentially non-existent and it cannot get it back to correct it, going by legitimate public opinion polls. The void is powerful.
The void indeed may be as old as humanity. Maybe most folks have seen it except me, and that is why these thoughts comprise an isolated comment in a small forum of my own design. I bet it has a name, and I’ll run across it soon enough. Then I’ll see that I always knew it. I shouldn’t be surprised or angry about it, certainly at my age. -30-
