Should Junkies Decide Who's President?

If you type the phrase “political junkies” in Google, you get nearly 600-thousand websites. But when you put, instead: “Define: political junkies,” you get, precisely, none. Zero. And, yes, I made sure all the words were spelled correctly. (Did you know Google was also a dictionary? Actually, it’s almost every dictionary. Type in Define:, then the word or phrase you’re searching for, and you’ll get definitions from just about every published dictionary in several languages. I know it’s probably not cool to still be impressed by Google, but I’m just sayin’..)

Of course, we all know what a political junkie is, even without a formal definition. It’s someone who eats, drinks, sleeps, reads, blogs, reads blogs, and most of all, WATCHES, political news. And in a presidential election year, life is one, big long overdose for a political junkie.

All well and good. Junkies of all stripes should get their fixes. (I don’t speak here, of course, of a true junkie; Google definition: a narcotics addict). I mean people into sports, Star Wars, crossword puzzles, whatever. But with political junkies, especially when it comes to cable television news, the power they wield is is becoming disproportionate.

Here’s what I mean. Let’s say that, arguably, the people who faithfully watch the evening political programs on the three cable news networks can mostly be called political junkies. It’s wall-to-wall Obama-said-this-McCain-said-that-Wes-Clark-said-WHAT?-Karl-Rove-said-OH-NO-HE-DIH-ENT pure political patter and putdown for hours and hours. To that end, the job of the networks (the “pusher,” if I’ve not already worn out the metaphor) is to keep the product coming. And coming. And coming. Regardless of whether there’s any actual important political NEWS to discuss. The discussions go on even without real news, and after that, the pundits and hosts and talking heads simply discuss the discussions. Go longer without real news, and the topics become things that don’t exactly have a lot to do with who might be best at governing the country, like Obama’s bowling (just imagine the uproar if he’d airballed that three pointer in Iraq) and McCain’s teleprompter skills.

I’m just suggesting that maybe there’s not enough real quality political news to have it chewed over so much and so long. All of this has only started happening the past ten to 15 years, since the internet and the cable news channels started firing up. If you look at American history before that, it seems like we generally did okay NOT looking at polls every day, or wondering if the matter of the candidate’s hair color would live for another news cycle. Sure, maybe some presidents weren’t vetted properly by the political junkies of the day; (James Buchanon was a bachelor. HELLLLLOOOOO!!) But it could be argued that the choices made since cable news political shows started haven’t worked out so well, either.

Even so, it seems to me that the care and feeding of the political junkies is now driving the political agenda for everyone else. The term “echo chamber” needs a hiatus, but it’s as good a description of any as to what happens when news coverage creates issues which create news coverage. This circular game of telephone takes comments and rumors from some crank with a computer or a microphone clipped on him, and turns it into tomorrow’s lead story on NBC Nightly News.. Sometimes, that’s democracy at work. Other times, you end up with “news” that’s simply not relevant to people who care deeply, and are impacted deeply, by the political process, but don’t have the time or inclination to be political junkies.

You have to look at the actual numbers. For the first six months of this year, the total number of average viewers for the three cable news networks’ evening shows is around 4.1-million. Compare that with the ratings for shows on the entertainment networks’ prime time schedules. The TOTAL news cable audience would put the political gabfests nowhere near the top 20 programs. More than twice as many people watch “So You Think You Can Dance.” Every CSI between here and Las Vegas wipes the junkie shows out. Ask yourself: Do we really want the agenda for this vital presidential election determined by far fewer people than watched “Celebrity Family Feud” last week?

Political junkies are now crucial players in American public life. But they’re not the only ones, and campaigns, news organizations, and non-junkie political watchers should keep that in mind. After all, you wouldn’t want the Star Wars freaks running NASA, would you?