On Houses and Elitism

Jamison Foser:

. . . . Naturally, the news media rushed to cover the fight. Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post explained the importance:

In politics, there is nothing worse than appearing out of touch.

From time immemorial, a candidate who is effectively portrayed as forgetting about the "little" people, of having "gone Washington," of living higher on the hog than voters, loses.

Class remains a powerful motivator for many voters in the country. Politicians are forever trying to cast their candidacies as closely rooted in the communities from which they sprung -- a purposeful attempt to ensure that voters know that the candidate "understands the problems of people like you." Put simply: The worst thing you can call a politician is an elitist.

But in more than 1,000 words about the importance of candidates' convincing voters they are not "out of touch" and understand the problems of typical Americans, Cillizza made no mention of the candidates' policy positions. Didn't even hint that such things might indicate, in a more concrete way than the shoes they wear or the salad greens they favor, whether the candidates truly understand the problems of the people they would serve -- and whether they would do anything to ease those problems. Cillizza's focus was entirely on the perception and the politics of the dispute -- without so much as an acknowledgment that the candidates' policies might more meaningfully indicate whether one (or both) of them is "out of touch."

And Cillizza's approach carried the day. NBC's Nightly News, the CBS Evening News, ABC's World News, The New York Times, and The Washington Post -- among others -- ignored the candidates' policy positions in their reports on the flap. Instead, they focused on the campaign attacks -- and on attempting to assess which would be more effective. But assessments like these have absolutely no merit, no value. They serve no purpose; they do not educate viewers and readers about anything that matters. As Congressional Quarterly senior editor Chris Lehmann explained this week:

Market share dictates the witless coverage, which is largely for the media's own amusement. You see that all the time on the Sunday political chat shows, which are always about the polls and who is performing better in strategic terms. The only constituency that cares about that is the media. I have family around the country and we always talk politics, and no one ever asks me, "How did Obama perform on his European tour?" It's an asinine question.

Rather than attempting to guess how voters will score the exchange so they can tell the voters how they'll react (an exercise that is pointless at best), reporters should be giving them additional information that will help them meaningfully assess the candidates.