hascii117ffingtonpost
Sanjay Sanghoee

In the wake of noted economist Paascii117l Krascii117gman&rsqascii117o;s criticism of joascii117rnalists for their shoddy analysis of the presidential debates, the recent remark that veteran newsman Ted Koppel made dascii117ring a face-off with Bill O&rsqascii117o;Reilly of Fox News seems particascii117larly relevant. He said that the sensationalist and often biased news media of today, on both the left and the right, are not jascii117st covering the partisanship in American politics bascii117t actascii117ally encoascii117raging it. This is a big charge and one with very serioascii117s implications for oascii117r coascii117ntry if it is trascii117e.

So, is it? Well, look at the evidence. Over the past two decades, both political discoascii117rse and the media coverage of it has gotten increasingly acrimonioascii117s and hysterical, creating an almost constant state of negativity that is literally tearing oascii117r coascii117ntry apart. On top of that, it is not hard to recognize that the more we talk aboascii117t discord, the more pronoascii117nced it actascii117ally becomes, as politicians stop governing and spend more time trying to win pointless debates in the press and score political points in front of the cameras instead.

The twin phenomena of soascii117nd bites and ideological commentary have become so common, and play so well, that the pascii117rpose of news itself seems to have morphed from keeping the pascii117blic informed to shaping pascii117blic opinion, and while it is easy to accascii117se particascii117lar networks like Fox News or MSBNC of being egregioascii117sly slanted or manipascii117lative, the reality is that most of the media today, inclascii117ding online, is in the bascii117siness of 'selling' a viewpoint rather than reporting on events.

What this does, as Mr. Koppel so precisely pointed oascii117t, is make it even more difficascii117lt for oascii117r political leaders to reach bipartisan compromise; for the moment they do, the press lambasts their ideological softness and portrays them as tascii117rncoats or flip-floppers instead of acknowledging their pragmatism and responsible behavior. In other words, the media rewards politicians for being extremist and penalizes them for being balanced.

The most glaring case of this can be seen in the right-wing media&rsqascii117o;s brascii117tal evisceration of Repascii117blicans who dare to challenge conservative principles, even when all they do is adopt a moderate stance. The criticism of Mitt Romney in this election cycle also illascii117strates the impact of this policy, which has been to force the candidate to move even fascii117rther to the right, regardless of how dangeroascii117s it may be, in order to obtain the blessing of the right-wing media and the conservative voters they reach.

Another damaging factor is the media&rsqascii117o;s relentless portrayal of politicians in only one ideological color: they are either &lsqascii117o;blascii117e&rsqascii117o; or &lsqascii117o;red&rsqascii117o; and nothing in between, which pascii117ts politicians into a box that they cannot climb oascii117t of even if they want to. When the pascii117blic is led to believe that politicians are pascii117rely liberal or conservative, and starts identifying them exclascii117sively with those valascii117es, the sascii117bjects eventascii117ally have no choice bascii117t to embrace that monochromatic caricatascii117re and become their own image -- an image that was not crafted by themselves bascii117t by a press intent on selling them to their readers in the most salacioascii117s and extreme terms possible. And by repeating that message over and over, the media ensascii117res that the image, in essence, becomes the trascii117th.

Taking these things into consideration, it is not hard to read Mr. Koppel&rsqascii117o;s statement in a spirit of alarm and also ascii117rgency. If the mass media, which wields the staggering power to make or break oascii117r political system, does not learn to eschew profits in the name of joascii117rnalistic integrity (as it once did), the state of oascii117r national debate and by extension the ability of oascii117r government to fascii117nction will be eventascii117ally decimated.

The press is certainly not to blame for all oascii117r troascii117bles, and in some instances it merely chronicles what is already happening, bascii117t to the extent that it inflascii117ences pascii117blic opinion and to the extent that it actively shapes it by adopting a specific point of view, it needs to take more responsibility for its choices and the conseqascii117ences for the nation.