Let me add one point to the little burst of media criticism below: Martin noted that voters make decisions based on such critical data points as who wears a flag pin, and whether John Kerry accurately described his voting record in such a way that he sounded insincere. To be sure, the electorate is not likely to ever make decisions in the manner of a Brookings panel. It does not follow, however, that the electorate we have is the only one we could imagine. For reasons both of ignorance and "objectivity," the media has a tendency to report policy in a purely informational, rather than judgmental, manner. Plans are mentioned, and occasionally, described. Experts on both sides are quoted. But there's no "good" health policy and "bad" health policy plan, no "good" economic take and "bad" economic take. In policy, all plans are equal so long as you can serve up a credentialed expert to tout your offering. Conversely, gaffes and character controversies are covered judgmentally. It was "bad" that Kerry was a flip-flopper. Had that been a policy issue, you'd have heard some experts say it was bad, and others laud his willingness to adapt to the evidence, and the whole thing would've been reported in a detached, neutral manner. As it was, the media explained that the flip-flopping was a strike against Kerry, and so the electorate could factor that into their decision-making. So too with such issues as flag pins and Wright and Tuzla, and such traits as elitism and ambition and dogmatism and independence and straight talk. The media tells voters what to think about those things. They don't tell voters how to think about policy content. So is it any wonder that voters often seem to decide based on the metrics that they're given the tools to evaluate, rather than those that are presented neutrally amidst a cacophony of contradictory experts? The media purposefully makes it easier to vote based on procedural gaffes than policy analysis. Then they point to the fact that people overweight gaffes and use that to justify their coverage decisions. The reasoning is utterly circular.
