Friends,
I am not sure I can work with these 41 pages enough to provide my usual level of informative humor. Please bear with me as we toil through the last two weeks of Larson.
First, I shall be a broken record. Throughout this section on politicians, as well as in the previous section on protests, Larson argues that there is a problem with equal representation for different groups. As I pointed out last week with the example of the whacky Phelpses, this argument is problematic. It is impossible for the media to provide coverage of every single politician who might serve the media outlet's constituents (and more and more with the ridiculous amount of coalitions, it's important to pay attention/donate to campaigns in other states as much as your own), so some kind of choice is going to be required. Someone has to make that choice, someone will get unequal coverage, and someone will cry foul. Is it fair to seek equal coverage for the 15+ candidates that ran in the 2012 election?
On page 197, Larson gives a spiel about outsiders and people pretending to be outsiders and how the media only likes people who pretend to be outsiders but aren't really outsiders. At no point are we given what she considers an outsider or an example of a politician who is an outsider.
Also on page 197, Larson argues that the media coverage of Congress focuses solely on the incumbent and never gives press to challengers. It's too bad that the Tea Party movement happened right after this book was published, thus wholly discrediting this argument.
Page 206, Larson uses Marion Barry as an example of a Black candidate disparaged by the press. Larson neglects to mention anything else about Marion Barry that might be of interest.
Page 210, Larson's description of Black candidates as novelties could be removed and word for word applied to Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich in the last presidential election(s).
Finally, throughout this section, Larson frequently makes big claims that are simply not supported by the evidence and studies she presents. Most of the information she presents in the African American chapter indicates that Black candidates receive similar coverage to White candidates, and the Native American section has no studies at all beyond LexusNexis searches.
Well it's obvious we've made our choice on this book! I agree that Larson just kind of states the "facts" about these politicians and thens just dismisses the other side such as her definition of an outsider. I continually kept writing snide remarks when she commented about the lack of scholarship and representation (e.g. candidates and seterotypes) and then she continues to write about it for papges, and i'm sure in 2006 there were examples of stereotypings candidate in the media...
ReplyDeleteIt feels like this book was pointless to write at the time she wrote it, given how the Obama example changed everything before this book even got published.
Delete