Collegiate Times

For people who follow the role of the media in government, the developments and shortfalls of cable news have been well documented.

Major pundits and networks have been so often guilty of bias, yellow journalism and twisting words (the use of “deficit” as opposed to “national debt” comes to mind), that their journalistic impieties have caused a rift between news-watching citizens and earned them regular derision from outside commentators. It is interesting — if not frightening — to note that when a person indicates a preference of the three major news stations, it is considered (often correctly) a declaration of allegiance to a particular political party.

Intriguing and troubling as it may be, there is no good that can come from continuing on such a broad review of the media; it is foolishly stubborn to try to change someone’s general conception of an issue. For every MSNBC viewer who finds Bill O’Reilly to be an abrasive bully, there is a Fox viewer who thinks Keith Olbermann is a pompous jerk.

One of the more evasive questions about a populous that gets its news predominantly from one of three national news stations is what effect it will have on federalism.

As newspapers, which are usually local entities, continue to struggle in the Internet Era, more Americans turn to national television news to keep up with political events. Free, outside of cable costs, and with business models that indulge our human desire to reinforce the validity of our own views, cable news networks are an attractive alternative.

The trouble with this phenomenon is that the national media is national. By time and viewer-interest constraints, sufficiently reporting on statewide issues in all 50 states is impossible; everyone can agree on that. But, if the trend of nationalization of media continues, there will be minimal outlets for the citizens to read statewide news, especially in small- and medium-sized states such as Virginia.

This problem has largely already manifested itself. Think back to last November, can you honestly say that you made an informed vote — if you even voted at all — in your state’s elections? Or did you merely vote your opinion of President Barack Obama without regard to potential differences in his philosophy as opposed to the candidates in the election? Even if you did the latter, it’s not your fault. It’s a natural byproduct of nationalized media. Older generations have been affected by this journalistic rearrangement, but ours has been raised under it. It’s like owning a computer or getting your driver’s license at age 16 — we think this is just how it is supposed to be.

It is important, however, to correct this trend. By the nature of American federalism, Virginia’s Democratic Party is independent of the national Democratic Party; political philosophies and the meaning of party membership changes by state and also at the national level (the South, where “Democrat” tends to mean, “Less conservative than the other guy” is a great example). The people running for a state’s governorship cannot vote on national legislation; their duties are to their specific state’s issues. Supporting a gubernatorial candidate because of his support toward a national party’s stance on national security is foolhardy since states play virtually no role in defense. Thus, a general conception of national politics is not sufficient to guide state elections.

Also at issue is the effect national journalism has on state politics once candidates have been elected. Aside from a few major stories and those that affect us directly, does anyone really know what goes on in Richmond? Every detail of every Congress session, every protest, and every Supreme Court case, is so heavily studied by national media that it’s hard not to be aware of these issues.

Continue Reading: 12 Next » 

A version of this article appeared in the Feb 24 issue of the Collegiate Times.