SEND TO A FRIEND

|

PRINT ARTICLE

|

Cross-over Hits of the Campaign Season

The old adage that politics makes strange bedfellows holds true for political journalism as well. One side consequence of the long, drawn-out, and (on the Democrats' side at least) fairly acrimonious primary contests for the presidency has been a new-found appreciation for columnists we usually love to hate. While Hillary Clinton bashes Barack Obama and Ann Coulter trashes John McCain, Democrats and Republicans turning pages at the kitchen table or sitting at the computer increasingly are looking fondly at commentaries from people they once would have placed atop their personal "most wanted" lists.

Let me start where all true learning begins, at home. My wife, a staunch conservative, in the past few weeks has gleefully directed me to columns by Maureen Dowd, Eugene Robinson, and Richard Cohen - not for derision, but because she actually liked what they had to say and admired the sharpness with which they said it. While the change in her reading preferences has been discomfiting - in a "who are you and what have you done with my wife" kind of way - it doubtless is not peculiar to her. A lot of political junkies are finding that the other side has some interesting and thoughtful writers.

The well understood norm in the media is that people don't really want new information so much as they want confirmation of their own cherished views. Psychologists who study reactions to news find that information is processed by people with strong views in ways that reinforce their views. Those who work in the news-and-information media understand that point without the need for controlled experiments. Their base readership, viewership or listenership is generally confined to a like-minded audience. Liberals may tune in to Rush Limbaugh if they are committed political animals who want to know what to be outraged about from the other side, but for the most part Rush's audience ranges from conservative to antediluvian. So, too, Paul Krugman will be read by a smattering of folks from the right of center who are interested in seeing what a formerly thoughtful academic economist has to say, but mostly his readers are the hard-core socialist left to far left who appreciate his vitriol more than his analysis.

Most media carry just enough writing by columnists who don't fit their core demographic to give the appearance of balance. The Washington Post carries George Will and Charles Krauthammer, but everyone understands that the paper has a strong liberal bias and caters to an audience that wholeheartedly embraces the liberal credo. The New York Times carries David Brooks and William Kristol, but its opinion pages are far to the left of the Post and its current approach to a paper's central mission is closer to "all the news that fits our views" than the motto emblazoned on its masthead. A few media outlets, such as RealClearPolitics, actually take seriously the task of presenting all major viewpoints on important issues, but those are the exceptions. Media tend to be slanted left or right and the advent of the 24/7 blogosphere hasn't done anything to moderate that tendency. Far from it. The Drudge Report is required reading for anyone tracking scandals in either party, but most Web sites tilt heavily in one direction.

So what should we make of the springtime awakening to the genius of writers from the other side of the aisle?

The genesis of this transformation, of course, is that the divisions within the two parties combined with open contests for their presidential nominations have encouraged columnists and commentators to take shots at their heretic brethren. For insiders, the cannonades aim to purify the order by weakening leaders who are taking the party the wrong way. The Republican contests in particular highlighted sharp differences over what the party should stand for, with critiques of individual candidates often being proxies for the policy debates. Where real differences on policy are vanishingly thin (see Hillary versus Barack), the critical columns and comments are intended to advance the cause by helping to move aside someone standing in the way of accomplishing the party's good ends. For Democrats, this primary season hasn't been remotely about reexamining their goals, just selecting a better messenger.

Seen from across the aisle, however, any fusillade directed at one of our enemies is applauded as recognition of that politician's inherent flaws. Conservatives have complained for years that Hillary doesn't really care much about the truth, and they recognized years ago that she's never had any hesitation in trampling over anyone who gets in her way. When Maureen Dowd exposes Hillary's most recent lie or shameless sniping at her opponent, she's simply acknowledging a core tenet of conservative faith. Liberals have made common cause with Senator McCain, but there's plenty they don't like about him. Coming from the opposite side of the political globe, Ms. Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have lambasted McCain for his apostasy from conservative precepts. But liberals warm to their criticism of McCain whenever it points out what they see as a character flaw, finding for instance George Will's complaints about his moral vanity uncommonly thoughtful. Coincidentally, those are just the sort of comments Democrats will rely on next fall in the fight for the White House.

With temporarily shared targets, many of us can now appreciate the wit of writers whose charms previously eluded us. As they skewer the various presidential aspirants, we see how deftly they cut to the essence of the candidate's problems. But once the Democrats have coalesced around a nominee, will Ms. Dowd seem so clever or Messrs. Cohen and Robinson so trenchant? With Senator McCain as the nominee, writers on the right largely have quieted their most biting attacks on the positions that have made him appealing to independents and cross-over voters but anathema to some other conservatives. The empty space in the McCain attack zone is being filled even now by liberal columnists who are beginning to turn more attention to him, tilting against what they see as his most exploitable weaknesses for the coming contest with one of their own.

The hope of anyone looking for the happy ending is that the current popularity of columnists with their less natural constituents will blossom into a greater respect from each side's committed warriors, one that will last beyond the primary season and soften at least a little the partisan bitterness that has engulfed our national politics for decades. The more realistic prospect is that we will find commentary from the other side as irritating this October as we did last fall, that our own biases will again inform our understanding of news and views, and that bridges across party and policy lines will quickly become mere relics of an unusual political season. But at least a few may feel that naughty temptation to steal a glance or two at the unfriendly columnist and recall wistfully the zingers we loved this spring.

---

Facebook

|

Email

|

Print

|

---

Related Topics: election 2008 | media |

Sponsored Links