Trivial Pursuit

It's been a long hiatus between Presidential primaries and the gap has only encouraged the worst traits of both politicking and coverage of the same. With the enemies still being each other rather than the Republican nominee, the Democratic contestants have been reduced to quibbling over the most inane issues of inconsequence. And the media, in order to justify its overstated coverage, fans the flames by its exaggerations of trivia. Hilary's Bosnia boo-boo and, to a lesser extent, Obama's "bitter" slip of the tongue, were minor misstatements of the type that, given all this time, would arise inevitably from the grindingly long hours of campaign activity.

I did not watch the most recent Pennsylvania debate because, like some Democrats, I bemoan all the backbiting that could undercut the greater cause come November. But apparently the ABC moderators, George Stephanopolis and Charles Gibson, continued to fan the flames of silliness by asking the least substantive and most sensationalized questions possible, especially to Obama. Obama has been given an easy ride by the media, I think we'll all admit, until the Reverend issue came up (though one would expect strident rhetoric from an urban Black minister, and Martin Luther King said a lot worse). As for why he didn't put his hand on his chest during a National Anthem at a ball game, or why he doesn't eternally flash the American Flag pin as though it were a Maori tattoo, give me a fucking break.

My scorn is shared, it turns out, by the blogosphere and the suddenly navel-contemplating self-critics of the media. ABC has received a lot of Internet and journalistic grief. Now even the trivialization is being flouted as an issue in itself. Well, perhaps the media is largely to blame--as they must share the responsibility for Bush's War--but again there's the enormous news vacuum vis-a-vis the extended political season, which must be filled with something. This season, incidentally, has been going on for over a year now.

I guess all the political shows are to be blamed, but I wish to cite my favorite of them all as one of the worst contributors. That is the Keith Olbermann hour on MSNBC. I discovered it about a year ago and was enthralled by the intensity and articulation of his commentary. Finally there was a spokesman from the left with the same chutzpah as the self-righteous righties. And he is self-admittedly, grandiosely partisan, which is fun.

My opinions of Keith have always been favorable, even when he was a sportscaster in Philadelphia. He was a nice New York Jewish boy, a contemporary who was clearly very bright and ascended the journalistic heights by skill rather than athletic careerism. I even once met him, albeit, literally in passing. I was leaving a bank in Hollywood when he opened the door. He stood aside and very graciously held it open as I left. A busy man otherwise might not have done the same. For that moment of unthinking courtesy, so rare in this town, he imprinted on me a good impression that since has grown.

But he also has an hour to fill five days a week and his program has become the receptacle of every possible small issue and spin on that issue and poll consequences of that spin that can be elicited from his team of correspondents. I like everyone he has on, including Pat Buchanan, the "balancing act," but whose conservatism seems much purer than that of the idiots in the White House. but how much more can they say about the bitter, the Bosnia, the pin, the Rev., the Weatherman, etc., that won't eventually serve to turn us off? It's already happened to me. I don't watch any more.