On politics and bullshit in the Media
The Media. I am coming to terms with this “journalism” thing; and, as a writer, there are bits that I really like about it, and there are parts that I really hate that keep me from ever wanting to call myself a “journalist”. I don't want to write someone else's story. I write about the stories I see, not those I am asked to find.
Attempting to be a part of “the Media” gives me perspective on the rest of this beast, but not the sympathetic perspective you might imagine. It makes me more mad at the bullshit I read, if only because I am paying attention now. In the midst of it I see that it is quite possible to write the truth, to take a new point of view, to chase an interesting story, and-- most of all-- to write well. And the goddamn Media does not do these things. They just print lines and pages of bullshit that regurgitates what we already think due to the bullshit that has been previously printed.
The agenda behind it is what makes me most want to run away from this beast. An agenda that wants nothing but More of the Same, an agenda that places a front-page article about the "differing styles" present in the Mayoral race with a large photo each of Dave Cieslewicz and Paul Soglin and a page full of their rhetoric, with a sidebar box including the remaining three candidates. Oh yeah, and these guys are running, too.
Nick Hart joins Dennis DeNure and John Blotz in the box of sidebar candidates. This position was mirrored at the first debate last Thursday night, where Soglin and Cieslewicz were seated as a team in the spotlight, with Hart, DeNure, and Blotz conspicuously designated to the fringes. The Media and its agenda were aggressively present, as well; the debate was moderated by a biased and demeaning John Nichols, Associate Editor of Madison's Capitol Times.
 |
| Hart said in his opening statement that he hopes to get more people involved in Madison's politics. (L-R: Blotz, Hart, Soglin, Cieslewicz, DeNure) |
The host was infuriating and annoying, leading the debate in an unimaginably biased and unprofessional manner. He continually referred to Hart as “the comedian candidate”; patronized DeNure's Museum Mile dream; rebutted Cieslewicz's comments as if he were the one running; allowed John Blotz the opportunity to speak only to offer Cieslewicz material to argue against; and referred to Cieslewicz throughout simply as “the Mayor”, perpetuating the “Mayor Dave” branding utilized by his campaign.
Missing from the room was poor Scott Walker, who-- though I am no fan of his politics myself-- probably deserved a few minutes at the podium to rebut the repeated arguments made by Cieslewicz in this debate against his transit blunder. Cieslewicz and Soglin both were unable to ignore this issue, while Blotz noted, “It's not going to happen in the next four years,” so we shouldn't discuss it in this election. Hart agreed, saying, “High speed rail is dead; we need to focus on more tangible issues.” But the tangible issues of the sidebar candidates were consistently brushed off, and the floor returned to the Cieslewicz-Soglin debate.
In any conversation, Soglin's comments are a constant string of nostalgia for his forty-years-past hay day in Madison politics. The incumbent simply touted safe political rhetoric about his hopes and dreams for a value-added Madison. The dull conversation might have appealed to some of Thursday night's geriatric audience, but most certainly will also achieve what seems to be the objective of Madison politics: Bore anyone under forty just enough that they nod off and sleep soundly right through Election Day.
Thursday's audience was mostly guided, and in many cases wheeled, into the hall from their residences upstairs in this retirement home. As John Nichols pointed out, without Nick Hart's supporters in the crowd, the median age of the crowd would be “a lot closer to eighty”. He was trying to make a joke, but it is entirely unfunny; it very blatantly points out a major flaw in Madison's political landscape.
Audience demographics were, unsurprisingly, largely ignored by the multiple reports in local Media of the debate, though multiple articles noted that it was “standing room only”.
The bottom line is that the Mayoral debate is a dull story, because it was focused on the two candidates playing it safe. Playing it safe makes for a stupid story, but it's the one they all print.
Where is the journalist trying to find out what the hell Dennis DeNure's “Museum Mile” is? Whether or not it's a good idea, this guy has a damn good story to chase.
Why has no one made the connection between John Blotz's criticism of cronyism and favoritism in the Mayor's office and his personal experiences as a city employee under the administration?
Where is the headline about Nick Hart, the comedian who collected over 200 legitimate signatures from bars alone, offers 2,000 new voters, and leads the city's only poll?
These are stories-- not the dull, repetitive bullshit that gets printed every day in the mainstream local media. The uncreative rhetoric printed in Madison's papers bores and annoys me as a writer and a voter.
With only 12 to15 percent of eligible voters actually casting their votes for Madison's municipal elections, it seems I am not alone. The Media continues to print the stories that have already been written, and the People don't care to read them. And they are definitely not going to react to them by voting in an election they don't even know is happening.
This “journalist” is going to chase the stories that aren't told in this race. The candidates have all been kind enough to grant me the time of day to make their names known in This Artists' Life, and I intend to use that time to speak with each of them about anything other than the rhetoric that has had my colleagues and me nodding off these past eight weeks. It's time to wake up, Madison! Let's get this party started.
