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.
We worry about various kinds of tyranny and injustice disseminating from Washington, but the lack of scrutiny of state politics has given free rein to state officials. The loss of local media, which once held politicians to their word as the national media tries to today, is at the heart of this problem, and its return to functionality is the only solution.
Nationalized journalism has gone beyond standard media operations of informing constituents and being a government watchdog — it has also pervaded our own philosophies. Whereas in the past, important issues were addressed at state levels where politicians could generate solutions to fit their state’s unique situation, Americans now look to Washington to solve every issue.
Consider health care: instead of seeking federal legislation, Massachusetts citizens decided to create their own reforms that solved the problems they faced in particular, rather than all the other problems facing each individual state in the union. Without commenting on Obama’s plan, I would venture to say that Massachusetts’s reforms were much more efficient and directed than national reforms could ever be.
Many may point to the famous calls for “states’ rights” during the civil rights movement as evidence of the tyrannical potential of states, and the need for the federal government to protect American citizens. Obviously, most do not object to the civil rights acts in modern times. However, what supports of states’ rights ignored then, and critics of state-oriented politics ignore now, is that the 14th Amendment barred both the federal government and the states from discrimination, and Section 5 gave Congress the power to enforce it “by appropriate legislation.” Thus, federal civil rights legislation was both constitutional and, of course, proper.
The return of state-centered journalism is requisite for an efficient and solution-oriented government. Progress and solutions to problems almost always come from analyzing the individual issues’ problems on the micro-scale, where broad ideologies are not powerful enough to constrain what solutions a person is willing to pursue but are sufficient enough to moderate the solutions we accept. (In other words, we might determine a solution to student dropout rates, but if it somehow conflicted with a basic freedom, we would shelve it.) Establishing this type of government requires state-oriented journalism, as does guaranteeing the continued benevolence of any efficient
government.