A weekly window on the American political scene hosted by the Monitor's politics editors.

Biden firestorm may say more about media than the former veep

Joshua Roberts/Reuters
Former Vice President Joe Biden who is mulling a 2020 presidential candidacy, speaks to the media after speaking at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’ (IBEW) construction and maintenance conference in Washington, April 5, 2019.

Dear readers:

 
“Welcome to the world, Joe. You having a good time?”
 
That was President Donald Trump yesterday, poking fun at former Vice President Joe Biden and the brouhaha that has surrounded him of late. Mr. Biden’s penchant for close squeezes and other physical gestures – once seen as an asset for a retail politician – is being called out as inappropriate  by a number of women, who say it made them feel uncomfortable. (Mr. Trump, it’s worth noting, has been accused of much, much worse.)
 
The story, now on day six, has sparked furious debate from all sides. Mr. Biden’s critics see it as proof that he is too out of touch to be his party’s standard-bearer in 2020. Supporters see it as evidence that the Democrats are morphing into  a party of unforgiving scolds.
 
A more important question may be: should this matter really be dominating the news?
 
Media feeding frenzies are nothing new. But in the social media era, they seem to be growing both bigger and smaller at the same time. An alleged offense – sometimes involving elected officials, sometimes just private citizens – is given wall-to-wall, oxygen-sucking, pick-your-cliché coverage for a period of days (or sometimes hours that feel like days). And then the spotlight moves on.
 
Remember the controversy surrounding Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and the racist picture in his medical school yearbook? These days, as the New York Times recently noted, it’s as if it never happened.
 
The Times lists a number of reasons for Virginia’s return to “surreal normalcy.” As a matter of pure politics, once the governor refused to resign, his party had few good options other than to try to quietly put the whole matter aside. Moreover, polls showed voters were far less bothered by the decades-old photo than public officials and commentators.
 
“A feeding frenzy is typically not a mirror but a distortion of public opinion,” writes David Greenberg , a professor of history and media at Rutgers University, in a Times op-ed. “We need to remember that when we grill candidates about the taboo du jour, we aren’t helping ourselves understand their suitability for leadership but rather working through other cultural concerns. As for character, the real test of it may be whether a politician has the fortitude and self-confidence to brave the media storm.”
 
Let us know what you’re thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com.

Why We Wrote This

Media feeding frenzies today are both bigger and smaller – elevating all kinds of offenses into full-blown controversies before quickly moving on.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.