Yeah, but- wonkish?

Another writer explains the exceedingly obvious- Why We Need Al Gore.

Hey, the more they say it, the more likely it is to come true, right? No reason to go over it again- that’s more the job of Shakes than me, since I get all my information from her anyway (which is why I know that, like the Holy Trinity, Morrissey and Gore are most likely aspects of the same individual)- but it’s always comforting whenever common sense principles take a step towards mainstream acceptance.

Still, this is worth mentioning (emphasis mine):

As reported by the American Prospect in April, Gore feels strongly that today's media is failing in its duty to inform the public. Former FCC chairman and longtime Gore friend Reed Hundt summed it up like this: "Gore's own view is that he sighed noisily in the debate and used the wrong telephone line to ask for money and the media said these are momentous events. Meanwhile, they ignore global warming and the failure to catch Osama and the destruction of the safety net."

So true. Dean's candidacy imploded due to "the scream"; John Kerry's 20-year record of public service in the Senate was boiled down to, "I actually did vote for the $87-billion before I voted against it." The media treat the presidential race as if it were a contest for student body president, where one's gaffes and quirks are more important than the issues. No wonder Gore is reluctant to try again.

Sigh. Man, sometimes they get so close, you almost want to give them the cookie anyway. Still, the fact that a simple close rereading of her own article might have clued the author in on the problem makes it easier to keep the cookie for myself (ooo, butterscotch...). She mentions the media’s tendency to fixate on unimportant flubs over actual issues, but fails to recognize that these flub obsessions are bizarrely focused on non-Republican candidates. Why else would we even be talking about “gaffes” as destructive when we have a two-term president whose inability to speak above a fifth grade level is so widely accepted it’s barely even remarked on anymore?

The fact is, the so called "liberal" press covers elections by stereotyping candidates as quickly as possible. Which is why people still think of Al Gore as "boring," Howard Dean as "crazy," and, of course, George W. as "a regular guy". If a Gore or Dean makes a mistake- or even does something that can be misinterpreted as a mistake- that makes it all the easier to categorize them. When you have public figures represented by simple memes, you no longer have to deal with the ardous (and possibly boring) task of presenting the audience with actual information. And once a meme gets spread to the masses, it's nearly impossible to argue away, especially in the short period of time each candidate has to get their image across before elections. Which is why people keep on making tired "Gore invented the Internet" jokes.

So, Ms. Blumner got it half right. By pretending as though the media's treatment of politicians is wrong for all parties, she perpetuates the myth that the Democrats, while victims of poor treatment, were at least partly at fault, because hell, the Republicans haven't lost two presidential elections in a row, and if their boo-boos are getting just as much scrutiny, and they're still able to "connect" with the people, then man, those Democrats sure do suck, eh? Eh?