Stop talking about politics as if we don’t all know what’s really going on — Hillary and Harry edition

The major U.S. media have a bad habit of taking seriously things that aren’t really intended seriously. Like, when a party proposes legislation that is not intended to pass, but is intended either to raise money or properly frame campaign-year attack ads.

The thing is, reporters tend to know that the claptrap they are writing about is not serious, but they feel compelled to treat it as serious, because admitting that the politicians are insincere comes across as “taking sides” or “having an opinion.” God forbid.

When I was a visiting professor at Hillsdale College in 2012, I taught a course on writing political columns. I told the students that if you have a beer after deadline with a straight-news reporter, and you compliment her story, she might tell you what’s really going on behind the news story. “That part of the story — what’s really going on — is what a columnist should tell.”

But there’s no reason a reporter can’t tell it, too. Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg argues the same thing, basically, in his column on Hillary pretending not to be running for president:

Here’s how I would write the story:

Hillary Clinton, who has been running for president at least since she finished her service at the State Department after the 2012 election, continues to try to freeze the competition. Her latest gambit? Announcing that she won’t decide whether to drop out of the contest for a few more months.

My colleague Byron York lays bare Harry Reid’s cynical play of pretending he’s trying to fight money in politics:

Reid has decreed that the Senate’s first order of legislative business will be a proposed constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to regulate every dollar raised and every dollar spent by every political campaign in America.

Put aside the merits — or lack of them — of this particular proposal. Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in both House and Senate, plus ratification by three-quarters of the states. This particular amendment, supported mostly by progressive Democrats, won’t even get past the first step. So why would Reid devote precious time to an entirely futile exercise?

Because the Senate’s brief two weeks in Washington are all about the campaign to come.

It would be a service to readers if the rest of the press treated these silly plays with such honesty.

Related Content