Conventional Wisdom states that "the media don't make the winners in an election, they just report on them." If that is truely the case, then it's a pity that THEY decide who to report on isn't it? They may choose the victor too soon (and incorrectly.) THEY name the 'victors.' Their whole reportage is tilted toward a 'cover only the winners' attitude.
The elections for our governing 'elite' are covered like horse races so the only thing the media needs to report is who's in first, second, and third. There is no need to spend resources on researching and reporting the issues that actually matter to the crowd; just 'how heavy the jockies are,' and 'what sort of crop they'll be using,' or even 'how many pairs of goggles they'll be wearing so that they can still see the home stretch after all the mud-slinging during the race.' You know, the essentials of the "race" itself.
How many voters [and potential voters] need to have more information than who Donald's security punched? Wouldn't you rather learn more about WHY and what the message that person was trying to get out to the nation about the D? What is the detailled backstory on that? Details that tell us, the voters, more about the questions that are rarely asked in press conferences.
BLM activists taking over the stage in Seattle and then at NRN caused an uproar but it also started a discussion about WHY they were protesting and THAT was something that had not been covered in any depth in the media before that time. They got a national stage in the media, who proceeded to customize their message as they are wont to do. Viewers can pick their favorite slant on the information as needed to support their prejudices. You may need to change channels now and then to remain comfortable in your information bubble while consuming the "news." BUT, the questions were raised and debate started at last which led to some changes happened in the stances of candidates and among the punditocracy [still with their slant of choice of course.]
Do we have to have 200,000 people show up to march in D.C. to get the media to pay attention to an issue so that debate and information investigation will begin? No, that didn't really work out in the runup to the Iraq war did it? What's next? How desperate will we all have to be and what means will we have to use to get the media to cover what we all NEED to know about?
It's not like there isn't a wide range of topics to get more information on and write articles about. It's a target-rich environment out here in real-world land. Local, state, regional, national, and international issues.... all begging for some attention.
Even the language of the reportage lends itself to unreality: they write "stories" about "races" and then do color commentary on the participants. No need to do any in-depth research, just sit back and fill in the blanks for "poll positions" stories. Easy peasy... you don't make employment-threatening waves with the owners or editors & you get to sit by the pool at the hotel and type your story on your laptop with a nice drink at hand. Who needs more information than 'who's ahead' and 'who said what about who today?' Wasted effort since if you DID stir yourself off the chaise longue and actually did some research and interviews then wrote an ARTICLESCRIPT including details like citations of backup sources, it would only get maybe 15-30 seconds on air with a nice splashy graphic from the intern in the Art Dept. as a backdrop for the presenter to read it to the audience... many of whom are busy doing something else and not really paying attention anyway.
There was a time, long ago, when the TV news was more than entertainment. It told a story based on organized and researched facts that had a POINT to it. It was more than "air pudding" to fill a living room with noise so the people won't feel so alone as they do other things. It was WATCHED and looked forward to. The years of Murrow, Cronkite, Huntley/Brinkley, Chancellor, Sevareid, et al were days when the news departments of networks were not run for profit but for PRESTIGE.
Lament my friends for the death of journalism and the birth of opinionism with dog and pony shows to replace the information needed by the electorate with entertainment so that they can act at the beck and call of their favorite televangelist or TV personality rather than in their own INFORMED interests. Alas that the recent 'most trusted news sources' were Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. John Oliver and Bill Maher are trying to fill the gap but once a week is not enough. Here's hoping that Larry Wilmore [who is doing a good job so far] and 'the new kid' who will take over Jon's timeslot will produce some insightful views into our "democracy's" inner workings.
Here's to Hope.