Do Dems Need Their Own Newt? Or Does Press Need Backbone?

A Washington Post "think piece" today suggests that "Dems Need A Newt Of Their Own", because
"The Party Can't Have a Revolution Without the Revolutionaries."

I would suggest the Media needs a Washington Post because you can't have a Democracy without Journalists. And that there can't be real politics without publications like the Post used to be. You know, back when they actually investigated scandals and informed the U.S. public about those scandals and their perpetrators.

It's true the Dems are a mess, that they mostly have no message, that they can't seem to mount any kind of insurgency campaign, that they need a revolutionary vanguard, but there are some Democrats who do speak out like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, andrecently, even Hillary Clinton.

And it's true Newt had a gift for the kinds of stunts the media likes: The Contract With America is his most well remembered coup de theatre, and it's true the Dems could use somebody with the same kind of flair for dramatization of their ideas.

But when they do speak out now, their views are quickly denigrated by the right-wing attack machine, the Rovian smears and slurs immediately reported by a press which believes 'tit for tat' reportage absolves them of having to do anything more. Like, for instance, investigate the cornucopia of scandals pouring out the Bush administration, put them in context, provide perspective, and do their job.

I'm probably being too hard on the Post. The Times has been a mess, too, pulled to the right by the 40-year campaign of intimidation by the Right against the 'liberal media.' And, newspaper readership has been sinking for years, replaced by the hyper-twitchy super-contentious ratings-driven watchership journalism practiced on cable news stations -- very hard to compete against with real news.

The Post is right to want some real back and forth between the two parties. They are right to want some stunts, some Democrats with some charisma, someone to help them sell more newspapers. I think we all would.

But they shouldn't put it all on the Democrats. They should look to their own house as well, and the houses of their brothers and sisters in the media. They should look to who owns the house of the media in which they labor, write about whose interests are served by the infotainment formats that submerge hard news under the fuzzy 'news you can use' formats that suffocate the political for the commercial.

Easy for me to say, of course. I don't have a ravenous Wall Street looking for bigger profits every year, a CEO who has good friends in the Bush administration, contacts in the government that will shun me or smear me if I don't play ball.

But really, if the Dems need a Newt, then doesn't the Post need a Katherine Graham?

Technorati Tags: Newt Gingrich, Democrats, Media, Washington Post