core_centerpiece_tab
Where’s Mr. & Mrs. Waldo?

While reading the “newspaper” online I came across a couple stories that captured my attention. I clicked on them both not because they were newsworthy (they weren’t) but because they appealed to my socially & digitally trained brain. The same brain that grew up reading long form magazine pieces in The New Yorker and Field & Stream; not to mention spending hours slowly devouring the Sunday paper, digesting sections like a python moving rodents down its throat.

That was then.

These stories are classic examples of the sort of content we feed on now. Both are fairly meaningless by old-school journalism definitions. Nobody died or got hurt. Nothing really is at stake.

The story about vandals knocking over a sandstone goads us into clicking its link, pushing our buttons to judge and to vilify. In this way it is like those “news” stories about drunken beachgoers tormenting a baby dolphin. We have to see these cretins and pillory them. Seeing for ourselves is made possible by amateur video or photography.

The other story functions in the same way but by pushing completely different buttons. The author beseeches us to try and find the “mystery couple” from this “Instagram-worthy…magical photograph.” The picture is of a bride and groom posing on a pretty spot in Yosemite. They are not famous. The photographer is not important. The location is unquestionably on infinite tourist-y photo albums. The chance discovery and the chance to discover are what makes this story click-bait.

Not long ago neither piece would be considered news. Now they probably get more clicks aka readers aka viewers than headlines about bombs falling in Syria.

mass-media-manipulation

Something’s been bothering me for a while. I want it to blow over like the non-event that it undoubtedly is. But I can’t. So I figure I’ll just do what I’ve always done when something gets caught in my head. I’ll pry it out with my laptop.

These political conventions. God, I loathe them. I see an epic amount of bullshit being leveled at us from BOTH parties, BOTH candidates, and BOTH their get. I know, I know. That’s why they call it politics.

But that’s not what bothers me most. It’s the campaign wags. They bother me. These people, and their talking points, unable to let them go for any reason, ever. On FOX or CNN, it doesn’t matter the forum. The network puts a couple politicos from either party on TV, has whomever ask them whatever and the answers are always the same: talking points. The interviewees never answer as themselves but rather are channels for party rhetoric. They used to call it spin. But that word has gone away, hasn’t it? Fake answers are the new normal. Truthiness. I hate that. I wish everybody did.

house_of_cards_1280
“Parse your words and live.”

In my years in Adland, I’ve seen this behavior before, all the time, actually, and from myself as well. And I loathe it all the same.

Especially when we are in a wooing mode, as in a pitch. Here, the mania of talking points becomes a grotesque. We are asked questions by potential suitors and we immediately assume that these are opportunities to score points. In this context saying “I don’t know” is never an option. Nor is, necessarily, the truth.

Unless we are brave. Over the years I’ve tried to be brave. To answer questions truthfully. To grandstand less and look like a partner more. I don’t know if we’ve won more pitches because of it or not. There are so many variables. And I’m just one man. But I try. Because it feels like the right thing to do.

And so when I see a person on CNN get asked a direct question (hopefully not vetted) and give a vetted answer, I cringe. Don’t you? As a human being, I don’t want everything to circle back to the platform, to be so campaign driven. I’ve come to expect as much from the candidates (God forbid they apologize or not know something). Yet somehow, I feel betrayed worse when a less-credentialed officer hands us a line. Yes, he or she is a “campaign spokesperson,” but can’t he or she be human as well?

los-simpson-lo-hicieron-primero

The messes just get stirred up by the other side, providing the only alternative to talking points we ever see: attack mode. Land a talking point about the platform and land a punch to theirs. This is what we get. Over and over again.

You know what I would love? If someone being interviewed just answered a question without a crib sheet. For example: “I wish Mr. Trump hadn’t said that today. I don’t agree with him and It hurt us.” Or: “Of course Mrs. Clinton back-channeled Bernie out of contention. She wanted to win the nomination. And she did.”

Never happen, I know. But when so many elephants are left in both rooms their shit smells a mile away.