The Penultimate Word: A Possibly Depressing Discussion of the Media and the Nature of Criticism

I'm generally all about the idea that there's always going to be the same amount of corruption and misinformation in the world. Hopefully that tempered optimism will remain true as the American political system continues its adaptation to the slew of new forms of instant communication. It doesn't seem good, though. Presidential campaign spending is increasing in a way that it never has before, even when numbers are adjusted for inflation, and the miasma of news stations, bloggers, and political activist organizations seems to be large enough to create a perpetual motion machine for the infinite fomenting of bickering, scapegoating, and the instigation of an atmosphere of public animosity. The regrettable decision to read the ample and poorly grammared comment feed below news articles never fails to convince me of this.

For example, a recent action that's gained some attention among political news sites is The Daily Caller's investigation into Media Matters for America, which is a non-profit center dedicated to "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." The Daily Caller accused a variety of news organizations, including The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, and MSNBC, of blindly reprinting liberal-biased talking points sent out by Media Matters.

That is an issue in itself and I have little knowledge that qualifies me to comment on it.

The problem for me is the intensely unprofessional way in which the information was reported. The Daily Caller's article cited only anonymous sources, at least one a former Media Matters employee but many simply labeled "a prominent liberal" or "someone with firsthand knowledge." It then went on to mock the paranoid antics of David Brock, Media Matters' founder. Tucker Carlson, the editor in chief of The Daily Caller, sent vindictive personal emails to a journalist accused of following Media Matters' instruction. A headline of an editorial on the front of The Daily Caller's website reads "Media Matters matters even less on the Internet." The attack was vindictive, personal, and smug -- not to mention partisan. The poorly defended and anonymously sourced snipe at Media Matters took up their entire front page.

This isn't news! This isn't news, everyone! When articles are written with a wink and a nod to half of the country, they tend toward neither construction nor objectivity. Personal attacks and childish vendettas do not constitute responsible public information.

This case of immature cross-media bickering between stations and organizations is reflective of a more general public trend. Political discourse tends toward empty criticism: it's easier than objective analysis, and it appeals to the least common denominator of the public consciousness.

But we're attracted to polemics. Framing ourselves as "good" and everyone else as "evil" is way more comfortable than objectively assessing and compromising about difficult situations. As much as the two screaming people on either side of the line think they differ from each other, the important similarity is that they're both screaming. We, as a social organism, tend toward simple attack rather than nuanced argument. This makes political discussion sometimes devolve into pure negativity with no positive suggestions in sight.

Now, the demonizing of government criticism is what gives dictator states and oligarchies their momentum; this is not what should happen. The criticism of government decisions is a staple of a free society. But the rabid and sneering polemics of bickering media members diverts the public attention away from significant policy changes and toward the dramatized competition orchestrated for the entertainment of (and profit from) the public.

Jon Huntsman said in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last year that anyone who disagreed with Paul Ryan's current Medicare reform plan had "a moral responsibility" to offer their own alternative solution.  While criticism can be constructive, mere criticism only destroys; if nothing is built or suggested to replace it, it is an essentially destructive act.  

There is no law forbidding news sources from criticizing anything. But critics have a moral obligation to be constructive and impersonal. This is not written in any law, but it is essential for the health of society.

I want to be clear that it is not the American government's place to censure these acidic organizations, but it is our duty as individuals to remove the power of lazy and negative political discourse by refusing it our attention, our money, and our respect.  Libel and mud-slinging in political discourse turns the organization of society into a game -- the problem is that the stakes don't necessarily lower when the nature of the game becomes ridiculous.

Personally, I wish that I could detach myself from all of this. I wish I could avoid action or making decisions. But I keep bumping into the uncomfortable truth that if I am going to be a member of society, I can't choose to be wholly apathetic. It's not possible to remove oneself from the discussion of social organization, short of actually moving to a secluded area and refusing all of the benefits of organized society (from roads to grocery stores to firefighters). Political inaction IS a decision. And our membership in society incurs in us the obligation to recognize that.