 Share
|
« Previous Politics | Next Politics » |
Email
Print
|
No Big Deal?
By
A correspondent writes in apropos of my criticism of Paul Krugman's take on the contrast between press coverage of 1994 and 2006 to suggest that it was objectively a bigger deal for the GOP to take control of the House for the first time in decades than it was for Democrats to return to the majority after a twelve year absence. That may well be right.
Much more persuasive than any of this, it seems to me, is Krugman's next post, slamming political journalism as theater criticism. I think this is right on. What's more, I think it's this -- the superficiality and trivial nature of contemporary press coverage of political -- that explains the "so-called liberal media" phenomenon. The dominant approach has an overarching reactionary valence that far outweights the political views of any particular person or set of persons who participate in the system.
Much more persuasive than any of this, it seems to me, is Krugman's next post, slamming political journalism as theater criticism. I think this is right on. What's more, I think it's this -- the superficiality and trivial nature of contemporary press coverage of political -- that explains the "so-called liberal media" phenomenon. The dominant approach has an overarching reactionary valence that far outweights the political views of any particular person or set of persons who participate in the system.
Join the Discussion
After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus