Vast Media Conspiracy of Dunces

It occurs to me that the responsibility borne, like it or not, by the established media for some of the hostility in today's party-politics is not all of the Shill O'Lie-ly/Rush Dimbulb variety (guess what my politics are!). I find it strange that reporters and/or writers who play happy games of He-Said-She-Said with significant facts (e.g., al Qaeda and WMD in Iraq) seem to obsess about getting trivial facts straight. A case in point is this Yahoo! caption to a CNN video link:

Democrats fail to override the president's veto, and Republicans may be key to a compromise.

Yes, it's true that the Democrats failed to override the veto; but – and there is a huge 'but' –:

Overriding vetos is not the responsibility of political parties, it is the responsibility of the Congress. Constitutional checks-and-balances do not operate between political parties but between branches of government. If we were discussing literature, we might say the the caption-writer was engaging in a bit of synecdoche by using "Democrats" to refer to "the Congress." But we're not discussing literature, and that's not what the caption writer intended, because the established media emphasize conflict (cf. "teach the controversy"). Conflict sells: unlike concord, conflict piques the interest of the uninvolved, and the established media only make money when people pay attention. If the dispute over the bill were between the Congress and the President, there'd be only one layer of conflict. But by Balkanizing the Congress, the established media can sell two additional conflicts: that between the House and the Senate (which is usually boring but sometimes not), and that between Democrats and Republicans (which is by far the meatiest source of conflict in American government).

Only the Legislative branch of government is susceptible to media-exploitable party-politicking, because it operates more-or-less openly and comprises a few hundred people. The thing is, though, that these traits were supposed to be the strengths of the Congress, because the Congress was where the people's voices were heard in government. You know the old saw "united we stand, divided we fall": imagine the influence of the Congress if it were portrayed speaking in unison on bills it passed. But the established media aren't interested in the quality of government – except when it concerns their industry –, just the salability of their stories about government.

Of course, there's still some general moronism in the caption: Democrats have a slim majority in both houses of Congress. So of course Democrats won't be able to override a veto when that requires a supermajority in both houses. And if Democrats are mathematically unable to override a Presidential veto, and the American political scene is a two-party one, then of course Republicans are going to be "key" to a compromise. So, clearly, the caption-writer is an absolute, goddamn genius. The only surprise is that he doesn't work for the AP.

Now, I don't blame the media for all of Congress' crippledness. As I said, the Congress comprises a few hundred people, the vast majority of whom have gi-normous egos. They likes to be on the TV and in the papers, and since the TV and the papers likes the conflict, it suits everyone when Congresscritters break ranks.

But the established media, the fourth estate, are supposed to keep a critical eye on governmental shenanigans, not encourage them.

Full Disclosure: I am a former Treasurer of the Iowa Socialist Party, and my Political 'Compass' [sic] location is (-8.13, -6.56), where the x-axis (range -10, extreme communism, to 10, extreme neo-liberalism) is economic and the y-axis (range -10, extreme libertarian, to 10, extreme fascism) is social. (The greater sympathy for economic than social freedom evident in my coördinates makes sense to me. Economic freedom has much less to do with whether or not I interact with someone than does social freedom. And I am like Arnold Rimmer's mother, who didn't suffer fools gladly, and saw them everywhere.)