A couple of weeks ago Jay Rosen, the NYU Journalism professor who writes Press Think, was asked to contribute to a feature the WaPo Sunday Outlook section ran called "Twelve Things the World Should Toss Out".
Jay suggested doing away with the hoary old Friday night PBS program "Washington Week in Review". His point was that the show's premise:
Five insiders (journalists) display their understanding of what other insiders (politicians) did this week for an audience of wanna-be insiders (the show's assumption about viewers)has outlived its usefulness, if it ever had any.
He goes on:
Host Gwen Ifill and panelists such as The Washington Post's Dan Balz, the New York Times' Peter Baker and CNN's Gloria Borger are pros; they've mastered their business. And that's the problem. They're in the same business as the people they cover -- the game of professional politics, also called the permanent campaign.I have to agree. For months if not years I've been trying to figure out why I now get bored with that show, which used to be a regular part of my Friday night viewing schedule. I think Jay's put his finger on it. The show is nothing more than insider baseball, and it's not willing to throw stones at fellow insiders (politicians, particularly) when stones need to be thrown.As lifers in this game, they share a sensibility with their subjects: that in politics savviness is next to godliness, and everything's really about the next election.
Because the boundaries of political debate in Washington are also the horizons of the discussion on "Washington Week," the show has no grace, mystery, edge or dissonant voice. What if the system is broken, the political elite is failing the country, accountability is a mirage and the game is a farce run by well-educated people who manipulate the symbols of the republic? Whenever those things are true, "Washington Week" becomes a lie. And around that lie the show's producers have put yellow caution tape.
I've also concluded that I'm not in the target audience for another reason: the program calls itself "Washington Week in Review." The audience, then, is not someone like me who pays close attention to politics every day of the week, but rather someone who doesn't have the time to do that. That's the person for whom a "Review" show is useful. I no longer qualify.
Posted by Linkmeister at May 28, 2010 08:29 PM | TrackBackFrankly, this same accusation applies to ALL of the "pundit" shows and about 90% of cable news in general. WWIR isn't even the worst offender, if you ask me.
Posted by: Brian at May 29, 2010 04:19 AMI disagree with the positions expressed. With two degrees in political science, a masters in public administration, and 30 years experience in the field the option to sit down and listen to a rational discussion of events (not emotions) by knowledgeable people is a refreshing change. I read the paper and news magazines on a daily basis, so I do not hear much new information but a new slant on information is always useful. We need a return to civility and issue-driven discussion in order to get out of our current cycle which is based purely on undefined "liberal" or "conservative" policies.
Posted by: Big Red at May 29, 2010 08:06 AMRed, I don't disagree with a desire for a new slant. Rosen doesn't think the show offers that. I've discovered that the only reason I watch now is to put a face to the name of an NPR reporter I've been hearing for years. Who knew that Elizabeth Shogren had a mass of blonde hair? ;)
Posted by: Linkmeister at May 29, 2010 10:31 AM