No News Is Good Publicity

by Lou Stone Borenstein
August 20, 2009

“Later, the Afghan Foreign Affairs Ministry issued a statement asking all domestic and international news agencies to refrain from reporting any violent attacks between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. on election day.”
-New York Times, August 19, 2009

What if the United States had banned election news throughout the 2008 race? A letter to the Editor might have looked like this…

Dear Editor,

How could I possibly know how to vote this year? With no media reporting on the candidates, I’m being kept from all the important information that is vital to making the right choice. I have no idea who missed more nonessential votes in Congress this year. Or who is now taking a different stance from an off-the-cuff remark made 10 years ago. I no longer know which candidate has a loose association with somebody who did something wrong at some point in life. And clearly, I can never again choose my allegiance based on whoever saturates my television with the highest volume of advertisements, or, when I’m feeling more sophisticated, the spots with the most appealing background music. These are the important factors I’m used to having in making a choice between two people. (Let’s face it: we’ll never have another Perot. Still, for some reason, Nader just won’t quit.)

Now I’m expected to completely change the way I choose my leaders within one election cycle. I’m an American. I rarely change, and when I do, I don’t do it that fast. I think this Obama fellow likes change, or so it seems from the few sound bytes I’ve heard. If he should win, I’m certain the American people will want his so-called “change” to come slowly. No one would want to see it rushed along. But with nobody reporting on it, I don’t know what change he’s talking about. I don’t know what anybody is talking about. I tried watching one of the debates, but fell asleep within ten minutes of the initial remarks. You can’t quite blame me though, as I had only caught about 10 hours of sleep the night before. So now I’m left only with seeing who has the funnier cameo appearance on Saturday Night Live.

I suppose I could look at the issues. I can’t deny that it would be righteous of me to assess where each candidate stands. But there are a few dilemmas with this approach. First of all, I’ve always relied on the media to inform me where the candidates stand. I’m not entirely sure I’m capable of figuring it out for myself amidst all the politi-talk of campaign speeches. (The day I’m able to understand those is the day we see Brett Favre retire for real. Here’s to many years as a New York Jet!) Secondly, we can’t help but belabor the point even when the candidates agree. Nothing irks me more than two people debating over their mutual beliefs. And third, I don’t really care about issues. They have never been a leading factor in my choice for the next leader. Many of them are too complicated for me to understand anyway. Plus, taking a stance is the fastest way to make enemies. I just want a leader who can do whatever he believes needs to get done. (Or she? But I’ll save politically correct gender neutrality for when I see it in real life.) Leaders know how to deal with their enemies, so I leave the issues to them. It’s just not for me.

Nevertheless, I did have one epiphany recently. Or at least I thought I did. It hit me that our old media excelled at reflecting public opinion. So I figured I could skip the middleman and go straight to the source. I went to the people to find out what they think. It turns out they don’t. They’re as flabbergasted as me; nobody knows what to think of anybody because nobody knows what anybody is thinking. I can’t blame them, though, as I have no thoughts to offer myself. It’s not that I’m incapable of holding a conversation regarding politics. Usually, it’s simply a matter of agreeing with the other converser the majority of time, and throwing in a few moments of apparent intellect by quoting some philosopher whose name I can’t pronounce. But now there is nobody to agree with. We can only leave political conversations to the politicians, and I know nobody thinks that can be good.

And so, with no small stories to blow out of proportion, no huge issues oversimplified for my edification, and no bandwagon to jump on, I am simply going to focus on the most easily accessible factors. Most important are looks. Could he have been the king of his prom? He wouldn’t have to actually win, just be a contender (except for Brett Swanson, who clearly rigged the voting at my high school and should be banned from all of our reunions). Do his eyebrows furrow? Does he sweat profusely? If I don’t want to look at him, how long will any one with power hold his company? Related to looks is age. Our Constitution prevents anybody too young from running, but still there are some who have too youthful an appearance. And that’s a clear sign of inexperience. There are the ones that look old, and then there are the ones that actually are old. I don’t distinguish between the two, as they’re both off my list anyway. Also, I need a good timbre in his voice. High pitched voices and monotonous tones are clear signs that someone is Vice Presidential material at best.

So there we have it: three easily accessible and assessable factors to use in making my pick. Of course, I’ll be waiting until the primaries are over. I’m not foolish enough to research more than two candidates.