There is a legitimate question as to whether "reality based" is a sense of commitment to facts and figures, and not just expressing reactionary opinions, or if that phrase means we are trying gain a deeper understanding of what is going on around us.
There are always complaints here about the MSM: they don't care about providing an understanding of issues, only the need to show two opposing views; they don't differentiate between small errors and preposterous and deliberate lies; they refuse to challenge those in power.
If we are operating on the assumption that the role of the "news" media is to present the information necessary for an interested populice to determine the best direction for the nation, it's hard to understand why they are doing what they are doing.
If you see if all MSM, including the "news," as an extension of our culture's habit of idolizing celebrity so much more of what we see makes sense.
What is the allure of most of reality TV (from
American Chopper to
Temptation Island)? Familiarity, conflict, and the overwhelming and often degrading, consuming desire to be on the Tube.
Crossfire isn't really so different. Most the time you can predict the talking points ahead of time by observing on which side of the table someone is sitting. Like
Blue's Clue's episodes, it's all perfectly predictable, establishing that peculiar familiarity and connection we feel for characters we only know through TV. Facts don't really have much significance in this perspective. Being a minor celebrity as a pundit is the real goal.
The fact and the figures that matter are how much humiliation will you endure, when asked questions about being a gay escort, if you can squeeze out another 30 seconds of individual fame before joining the cast of the Surreal Life.
In the star making machine reality is more about hype than substance. Right now we're supposed to believe that the new Star Wars movie is the good movie we've been waiting almost three decades to watch. Is that a big lie or a little one? It probably doesn't matter.
If there is enough publicity, buzz, and box office it's a success, whether it's actually a good movie or not. If the merchandising sells well then even a "bad film" is successful. All lies are equal.
Who cares is Laura Bush has actually ever watched Desperate Housewives, or of there never was evidence of WMD in Iraq? Both questions count the same. What is the buzz? Which parasitic talking head can dish out the current gossip on who's in and who's out? That's the information we value.
Of course the greatest power of a celebrity focused culture is access. Prestige is having an interview with a current "A List" personality. If your interview subject's last magazine cover was a small insert telephoto shot with his coat-shrouded head of coming out of rehab, then you're in trouble. Not even his "friends" are returning his calls, you have joined him in insignificance.
If you get kicked out of the White House pressroom you'll lose that access. If you can't get face time with famous faces, you're reduced to that boring behavior of going out and verifying facts, doing background research, and coming to an understanding of the subject matter. Better to be on E! than writing those boring long pieces in the New Yorker.
Of course our nation will suffer when this is our way of doing business. Our foreign policy, based on a good storyline rather than ground truth, will be awful, our election's results could put recognizable and reassuring fools into high office, and the press will feel impotent to help improve the situation for fear of losing precious access.
When you feel that the best editorial board is the writing staff of The Daily Show, you know we're in trouble.