The Netizen - Yes, Things Suck
Campaign Dispatch
by Brock N. Meeks
Washington, DC, 29 April
Speaking on a panel called "Understanding the Online Press" at the recent "Politics Online" conference here, I contrasted my own coverage of the 1996 campaign with traditional political reportage. "I'm playing off the Net's inherent cynicism of the political system.... It's not your typical horse race coverage.... It's 'journalism with an attitude.'"
Not everyone was buying the rap. David Lytel, a recent defector from the White House, decided to challenge my assertions during the Q&A. Lytel oversaw the development of the official White House homepage and now runs a company that helps Democrats use the Internet for political purposes.
The Netizen's coverage is "more like attitude with some punctuation," he said. "I've had to be quiet for three years during conferences like this, but now I don't have to be," he said, referring to the self-imposed censorship he endured while acting in his official White House capacity.
"Further, you're dishonest," he said. This remark was sparked by his anger at a hyperlink in a Campaign Dispatch that, when mentioning President Clinton, jumped the reader to the Skeleton Closet Web site, which dishes dirt on all the major candidates.
"And all you guys do is say, 'things suck,'" Lytel added for good measure.
Grabbing the microphone, I jumped to The Netizen's defense. "The journalism is a subjective matter, so it's a moot point to argue that," I said. "However, your other comments are totally off the wall." I referred Lytel to reports by The Netizen's ace road warrior, John Heilemann, plus a few of my own, to counter his "all you do is say things suck" remark.
Then I reminded him that, in a hectic email exchange when Lytel was still at the White House, I had agreed with him that the Skeleton Closet link wasn't appropriate. I asked him to send his complaint to The Netizen's producer. The producer, to his credit, addressed the issue head-on and decided that - in this case, at least - a better link could be found. And so it was. Case closed. "And if you don't think that's being responsive and acting responsibly, then take a walk," I concluded.
But on the way back to the office, well after the adrenaline rush of that exchange had run its course in my system, I realized I'd blown it.
I should have told Lytel: "You're damn right we write 'things suck,' because they do. Our political system is broken and hemorrhaging daily and it's about time someone in the media voiced that realization on a regular basis." And, I might add, such clear-eyed exposure of a screwed-up system is especially relevant during a presidential election year, when the cracks in our democracy are only widening.
Look: It's obvious to anyone paying attention that every four years the presidential candidates shuffle off to campaign in states to which they only pay lip service in the nonelection years. They make fools of themselves attending events that no self-respecting citizen would ever dream of attending, hoping to appeal to the (nonexistent) "common" man or woman. And in the end, the flesh-and-blood citizens who might hold their noses and vote actually get zilch from the victor for most of his time in office.
The incessant jokes on Letterman and Leno at the candidates' expense - and the laughing acceptance rather than rage from the audience - point up how alienated most voters are from a political process that's supposed to be of, by, and for them. So, yeah, the political system does "suck"; ignoring it won't make that reality go away. But writing about it, in a cynical vein or otherwise, just might make it unacceptable enough for some netizens, at least, to push away from their keyboards and head to the polls to try to correct the situation.
It won't happen overnight; it might not even happen within the next election cycle. But if enough people figure out that they ultimately hold the keys to change, then maybe we won't have to see column after column about the way "things suck." And, just maybe, that's when we'll all start seeing signs of a real democratic "revolution."
