The Media: What do they do again?

I hate pundits. Ok, so hate may be a bit strong, I’m simply struggling to understand their role along with that of what is considered to be “the media.” Case in point: the word “lipstick.” While I am astonished that McCain would make a big deal of this, especially considering he used the exact same phrase when discussing Hillary Clinton’s ideas, I am more astonished that the media is taking it at face value rather than scraping away the thick layer of spin.

I think Chris Rovzar’s article ’Lipstick on a pig’ Comment forces McCain, Obama camps to switch roles describes this situation the best.

In the end I can’t help wondering how we should take comments like this. And again, how do our character judgments color our perceptions? Are these mere distractions, political tactics meant to keep the debate about character rather than policy? I for one highly doubt there is any substance here and am left wondering, so what does one do? Is it worth calling McCain out on this? Is Obama wrong here? If so, is "community organizer" a similar thinly veiled substitute for "black?" Are we seriously talking about this?

At the same time, perhaps we expect too much from the media. We want them to be the last bastion of truth, to sort through the muck and find the shining sword of truth. Yet, when they remain neutral, they don’t take things far enough, leaving a thick layer of sludge for us to wipe away.

What is interesting is that most analysts are fully aware of the intent, purpose, and the potential success of such attacks. John Heilemann, in an article entitled The Sixty-Day War, states, “But there is a reason the Republicans keep falling back, again and again, on such hoary tropes. The reason is that, from the age of Nixon to the era of Lee Atwater to our current (yes, apparently, it’s not dead yet) epoch of Rove, they have all too often worked. Us versus them is a potent message—and one tailor-made to a candidate with the name Barack Hussein Obama.”

Whether Republicans or Democrats are guilty of this (while both sides are I do think the Republicans get the bragging rights on this one), why doesn’t the media seek to move beyond this? The cynic in me also has to admit there is far more entertainment value to a good insult or zinger, so why bother moving past them? Whatever the case, perhaps this is the media's greatest failing. When politicians get to control the debate (or sidestep it), which both sides will fervently work to do, the public only gets talking points, the party line, and he said she said – we never actually get to a debate.

While access to candidates certainly would help, if this continues we should just switch to a parliamentary system and get it over with. Then at least we’d just be voting for the party message without the distraction of individual identities.