Media Mania

"I've always thought the brain is the most important organ in the body, but then I realized, 'look at what's telling me that'." -- Author Unknown

I was going to tee off on a gaggle of subjects of current interest -- I amassed quite a collection of links from my early-morning news sweep -- but at the moment I'm more interested in a phenomenon that, for all the attention it gets, doesn't...get...quite...enough.

An extremely intelligent friend has been making the case for some time that broadcast journalism is unnecessary and illegitimate. Indeed, that's the title of a series of essays to that effect that he posted at Free Republic. If they're still available, all of them are worth your time. His thesis is that by "nationalizing" the news, the networks with national scope have deflected us from the affairs closer to us, with three consequences above all else:

• Effectively concealing the political chicanery taking place at the state and local levels;
• Deflecting citizens' attention to the federal level, where individuals have very little sway and interest groups rule the halls of power;
• Encouraging the vitiation of Constitutional constraints, as local developments are submitted ever more frequently to Washington's scrutiny, and local policy is ever more inclusively put under Washington's management.

All true; all unassailable. Whether there was any intent on the part of the networks' barons to bring that about, it is nevertheless the case. But there has been another consequence of importance, which should be far more prominent in our thoughts than it currently is.

---

Consider the recent gesture by actress Ashley Judd toward opening a campaign for United States Senator from Kentucky.

Miss Judd might not be the most prominent actress in Hollywood -- indeed, she might not be the most prominent member of her family -- but she does have national name recognition, mainly owing to her parts in various nationally promoted and distributed movies. National name recognition implies a similar degree of regional and local name recognition, which lends a surface plausibility to the suggestion that she might run for public office. But it should also get us to ask ourselves:

Would we regard this person's ambitions as non-risible were she not a Hollywood actress?

And similarly:

To what degree do we owe the lunacy of halfwit entertainers aspiring to high office to the national media?

The national news and entertainment media have done more than nationalize the news. They've also nationalized our "personalities."

---

Ashley Judd is not the first; far from it. We currently suffer the presence of violent idiot Al Franken, whom any sensible person would cross the street to avoid, as United States Senator from Minnesota, owing to extensive vote fraud and an unprecedentedly weak Republican response to his campaign. Until just recently, Arnold Schwarzenegger was Governor of California. Worldwide Wrestling Federation entrepreneuress Linda McMahon has conducted two campaigns for the United States Senate from Connecticut. Some years ago, Clint Eastwood served a term as mayor of Carmel, California. Sports stars Bill Bradley, Jim Bunning, and Steve Largent have all held federal office. The list could probably be extended much further; no doubt it will be in the fullness of time.

Let's not discuss the qualifications these persons might have had for the posts they sought and in some cases attained. Ask rather: Would their intended constituents have given them a second glance except for the profiles our nationalized media allowed them to amass? Wouldn't those voters have preferred someone closer to home -- someone known to them from local news coverage as a significant participant in local civic affairs, who had demonstrated his commitment to their region, and who could be relied upon to have his neighbors' views and interests nearest to his heart?

While the nationalized news media have promoted the federal level above all else, the nationalized entertainment media (which includes coverage of pro sports) has glamorized entertainers whose achievements and involvements off-camera wouldn't fill a thimble; whose attachment to any locale but Hollywood (or their home stadium) is nonexistent; who represent at most some special interest or glamorized "cause" rather than the region over which they seek public power.

If the word that springs to your mind in this connection is any other than perverse, make an appointment to see your brain-care specialist soonest.

---

Nationalized news and nationalized personalities imply nationalized causes, each attached to a national special-interest group that conducts national fundraising and fear-mongering campaigns. The very existence of those causes and the associated interest groups motivates the individual to ally himself with one or more of them, in hope of magnifying his otherwise laughable influence over public affairs.

However, an interest group, regardless of its nominal special interest, will have a ruling cadre that makes the critical decisions about the group's orientation and efforts. Also, there's really no such thing as a single interest group; it is impossible, in the nature of things, to disentangle any public-policy issue absolutely from all others. In practice, such a group will agitate for a bundle of policies, chosen by its cadre, that will broadly characterize the group as "liberal" or "conservative." That predisposes the group toward an enduring alignment with one of the major parties -- and the parties are managed by tight circles of kingmaker-strategists, which further dilutes the influence of individual citizens. Thus is the vestige of federalism supported by representative government reduced to nullity.

And you thought you knew why things are so bad.

---

Solutions? Sorry, fresh out. I could suggest that we start more locally-oriented papers, radio, and television stations, but such things have been made into guaranteed losing propositions: acts of civic charity that few persons will bother to read, listen to, or watch. Similarly, I could suggest that the civic-minded resolve to ignore the nationalized media, but in our era that's like asking a man to hold his breath for a week. Now that all politics is national -- sorry, Tip ol' buddy -- inattention to the national news would be catastrophic for such freedom-loving Americans as still remain. For now, all I can do is point at the cancer; I know of no tool capable of excising it.

More anon.