With Kevin Rudd in Washington meeting Barack Obama, and the new Geithner Plan seemingly hostage to the insta-reaction of the markets, punditocracy and economists alike, it’s worth pausing to cast an eye over an argument by Ian Leslie in The Guardian:
In an attempt to capture the experience of living in the age of mass media, the cultural critic Frederic Jameson talked of being trapped in a “perpetual present”. Bombarded with endless information, images from the past and dreams of the future, we live each day as if it’s our first and our last.
Jameson’s diagnosis may be hyperbolic, but those who followed 2008 election will have at least an inkling of what he was getting at. During the primaries and the general election, it was difficult to discern the underlying state of the race from the media coverage, because all that seemed to matter was WHAT’S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.
Almost every day, a new story would tear through the media ecosphere, gathering velocity and heat as it went, dominating the chatter on the web and on TV and radio. Hillary didn’t tip a waitress! Obama said something about lipstick on a pig! SARAH FRICKIN’ PALIN! Within hours of any “incident”, headlines blared, pundits pronounced, bloggers unloaded, campaigns sniped and counter-sniped. Each media node would feed off every other node, creating what scientists call “positive feedback”, the most familiar example of which is what you get when you move a live microphone too close the speaker: an ear-splitting noise.
Leslie argues that, actually, not much happened in the US general election campaign. I think that’s right – there are probably only a few events which could be pinpointed that actually shifted the dynamics and momentum of the thing. Leslie concentrates on the “media ecosphere”. But I wonder if what we’re seeing here is not also “fast capitalism” – the speeding up of the circulation of money, the value cycle, and the short termism that drives both share markets (often very short term indeed – as with short selling) and all the craziness that led to the bust of the boom. Maybe this phenomenon is the underlying cause of the crisis. Since Leslie invokes Fredric Jameson, one might well surmise or propose that the contemporary mediasphere reflects the “cultural logic of late capitalism”. If that’s the case, what is to be done? Take a deep breath and a longer view? That’s in essence the Keynesian road. But is it enough?
Leslie argues that, actually, not much happened in the US general election campaign. I think that’s right – there are probably only a few events which could be pinpointed that actually shifted the dynamics and momentum of the thing…
I dunno, I lack your theoretical depth but I’d like to suggest that it was being rather than doing that appealed so much to many of us on the political, satirical and feminist blog discussions. To take John McCain and Sarah Palin as examples, they may not have DONE that much, but it was fascinating to drill down into such details as – how are the Republicans spinning a female running partner? Who is Sarah Palin and what ideology does she represent? How do feminists respond to Palin and why? How do rightwingers and the traditional, male-dominated left (such as Kossacks) ditto? What is their history and what does it say about their campaign and likely actions when in government?
etc. This was the focus as I saw it rather than what was happening day to day, which simply provided more fodder to drill down into these issues.
Yep, I guess that’s reflection on ideology and political strategy, which can be of more enduring importance. I think Leslie’s point, though, Helen, is the US media’s concentration of faux outrage, scandal, “OMG what if this happens?” type stuff…
Boorstin’s concept of the pseudo-event is relevant.
Good on you glen
Fascinating that Boorstin’s book was published so long ago: 1962. Once read, its commentary on superficiality and short timeframes (attention spans) will not leave most readers. Too many close connections with media practice and the public realm.
Tyranny of the Sludge, I’d call it.
good luck, everyone: wading through it as best we can…
Plenty happened in that campaign, the media missed it for two reasons. First, they were looking in the wrong places, which alienated an audience that was talked at rather than with. Second, they were obsessing over events which weren’t that important, which alienated their audiences.
People are avoiding the mass media because it wilfully refuses to connect with them. Tyrannies tend to be hard to avoid and impose themselves much more forcefully into your life than easy-to-ignore jibber-jabber about, say, Michelle Obama’s arms.
It’s not tyranny, it’s just inconvenient that you have to hunt for real news rather than have it handed to you by journalists. I reckon there’s a market for real news m’self – pity that nobody at Fairfax, News etc. agrees. Mind you, I’m reminded of the old Mort Sahl joke that it’s a pity that the only people who know how to run the country are cutting hair and driving taxis (and hosting talkback radio, and writing for blogs).
ooooh cruel, Andrew E, that last rapier thrust!
Pulvis et umbra sumus.