Last week, Republican vice-presidential candidate JD Vance appeared on CNN’s State of the Union where he was interviewed by Dana Bash. During what could best be described as a testy exchange, Vance said he had ‘created’ the story of Haitian immigrants eating pets. Explaining that statement, he said he ‘created’ the story with memes and tweets, not that he created the substance of the story.
Still, no one listened. In America’s media ecosystem, which has little regard for nuance and context, the proverbial die was already cast. Left-leaning media were quick to point to his statement as proof of the story being completely fabricated. Right-leaning media viewed their reactions as another attempt to distort the words of a high-profile conservative. Both views are half-truths. But what interests me about the whole kerfuffle isn’t the truth of the story, but what the reactions to Vance’s statement say about our media, our elected leaders and us as voters.
Part of the blame lies with voters
News as a consumer product has always had a sensationalist element. ‘If it bleeds it leads’. People like spectacle, and they like being told they’re right. American media serves these two desires almost perfectly. Every election is now the most important in history; every member of the opposing party is literally evil; every Republican is Hitler; every Democrat is Stalin or Mao. Our media is always ready to deliver you the most sensational and self-affirming ‘news’ you can handle. I know that no one can really be unbiased, and we all have worldviews shaped by upbringing and genetics and societal pressures and about a million other factors. It’s the attempt to be unbiased, to try to be aware of blind spots, that is sorely missing from American media. Without it, the average voter, trying to make sense of our politics, is in a difficult situation.
Now, I don’t think anybody expects politicians to be saintly. We know politicians – politicians we support – are going to say things that are untrue. That’s why I think it’ll be hard for many Americans to completely admonish Vance for giving an ‘unconfirmed’ story a kick. It’s kept immigration, a subject his ticket polls well on, and a subject many Americans care deeply about, at the top of the headlines all week – or the top of social media trending lists, since that’s how most people get their news nowadays. Without a sensational story, the ‘MSM’ (Mainstream Media) would have continued to give immigration little attention. Is gaining that attention, in an attempt to help fix the issue, worth it? I think most people would say: ‘It’s politics we have’.
Still, I prefer a version of politics where the sensationalism doesn’t come from our politicians, and where our representatives hold themselves to a higher standard than ‘a guy I know told me’. (Especially when it comes to a story such as immigrants eating pets.) The American media does a fine job at sensationalism already. They don’t need the assistance of our elected leaders.
Part of the blame lies with voters. The way in which we expect so little from our leaders and media is a reflection of how little we’ve come to expect from ourselves. People have given in to the base thrill of seeing someone with an opposing idea or ideology get ‘owned’, the buzz from conflict with the ‘other’. If honesty and sober thought are values you don’t care about, then I suppose the current system is working fine for you. American democracy today desperately needs more discerning voters.
Without politicians having to pay a price from their own ‘side’ for being sensationalist and bending the truth, they won’t stop. That puts the onus on voters to extract that price, even if it means having politicians they don’t support in charge for a few years. If Americans want good values to win out, they may have to take a few losses in the short term. There will be another election – despite what you may hear.
Comments