Whether you agree with Marshall McLuhan’s assertions or not, it’s hard to look at American, or even global politics and not appreciate the effect of our news outlets.  We are bombarded – choose to be bombarded, by conservative/moderate/liberal spins on every word, nuance, and stutter that comes out of our politicians’ mouths.  We subscribe to alerts on our cell phones so we don’t miss anything, even when we’re in the restroom.  McLuhan probably didn’t see it at the time, but now it’s the immediacy of the information that shapes the message.

But what shapes the media?  Why is it that we only get a soundbite these days?  Quotes by all, regardless of party, are extracted, trimmed, cut and pasted into our news feeds.  The parts that grab our eyes and ears are broadcast, and context is stripped away.  These are supposed to be news organizations, but they only give us a fraction of what happened and none of the “why?”  I think the answer is competition.  Traditional channels like newspapers and network news struggle to stay in business against the onslaughts of blogs, Drudge Report, Huffington Post, Buzzfeed and all the rest.  Don’t get me wrong, the diversity could and should make us more informed, yet they stop short of giving us the whole message.

My particular frustration is the question not asked in mainstream tele-news.   Here’s how that unfolds:  a situation of real controversy or importance emerges.  The target or proponent is interviewed by (insert your favorite news organization here).  The interviewer asks “hard-hitting” questions.  The guest responds with a lie, half truth, or context-free answer.  It is clear to everyone that they have dodged the question.  The next question dangles in the air:  “so let me ask again,” “so just why did you do that?,” or “did you think about those affected by your decision?” but it falls, unasked.   And we are left to either believe the steaming hot BS that was just served up, or turn away in frustration.  Why?

I have a theory.   I’ll pick on the Sunday news shows – all of them – as an example.  Say 5 outlets want to interview this person.  They’ve all talked before and it’s been congenial.  “Come back and talk to us soon,” is often the parting line.  But what happens if one of the interviewers is polite but persistent in getting a real, complete answer to the question?  They might get kudos for great journalism, but their employers will never, ever get to interview that person again, or anyone close to them.  That news outlet is effectively blacklisted by the target.  And they can do this because there are 4 other news  programs licking their chops at the prospect of access to this person.  By doing their job responsibly, they are unable to do so in the future.  By colluding, consciously or not, with the interviewee, they live to broadcast again.

I wish I had a simple answer to this one.  It’s important because this is how many shape their decisions about voting.  Just like all our voting problems, this comes down to each and every one of us.  In order to be an informed voter (read:  be in a position for your vote to make a real difference) we need to demand that our newspeople ask the next question.  And the next.  And the one after that.  Or we should flock to those that will.