Our Brave Political Discourse

I’d like to think that the majority of Americans are becoming thoughtful, open-minded people and can tolerate a frank discussion on sensitive topics. Lately, I’m having second thoughts. Case-in-point: the recent treatment of one David A. Paterson as he ascended to the governorship of New York State.

It wasn’t enough that the previous governor was ousted in a tawdry, headline-grabbing scandal. And, make no mistake, I’m not criticizing his decision to tuck tail and slink away. As soon as the story broke, I felt it was the right thing – the only thing – for him to do. What he did was a crime and contradictory to his oath of office. (More’s the pity that we don’t have a certain Federal Executive with the same set of values.) However, not one day after Governor Paterson took office, the headlines were blaring once again. It seems he and his wife went through a rocky stage in their marriage and each had extramarital affairs. Big deal, right? Not if you work for a news outlet. You could practically hear the drool flowing as these intrepid journalists tripped over each other into the gutter with the story.

Now, I’d be willing to chalk it up to the over-enthusiasms of our local reporters grabbing onto a juicy story that might be their big break. And I worried that the fuss and bother over this very private matter would bring down Governor Paterson before he even got started. Thankfully, most of the noise seems to have dissipated on a huge wave of public disinterest.

I was equally dismayed, then, when a major news outlet, none other than ABC and their intrepid investigative reporter Brian Ross, managed to yank the most putrid, disgusting story possible out of over 11,000 pages of Hillary Clinton’s White House journals: the jaw-dropping revelation that she was at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on the Day of the Stained Dress. Who does Brian Ross think cares enough about this sordid detail? Or, better yet, why does Brian Ross care about this sordid detail? The depths to which this crack ABC investigative reporting team plunged has surely set a new record for depravity in journalism.

Low-life yellow journalism notwithstanding, it’s easy and tempting to blame mass-market media. Given the unprecedented access we have to information in this Age of the Internet, one really needs to look within ones own motivations for the answers. Why does the media continue to dredge up these slimy stories in the face of general disgust? What is their incentive? Someone, somewhere must be buying this garbage. In spite of our public expressions of revulsion for the tabloid-style journalism that has crept into “serious” and “respected” news sources, isn’t the same compulsion that causes us to gaze avidly at a car wreck at work here? Tell me with a straight face that you don’t at least glance at the two-inch headlines blaring from the weekly rags on display at the supermarket checkout.

It takes effort and research to follow a story without descending into the Schadenfreude gutter with the masses. It also takes a bit of self-control not to dance the knee-jerk polka when this type of “breaking news” hits the airwaves. It’s time for Americans to do their homework and enter a new kind of political debate: one that is founded on reason, not hysteria.