My morning routine was more interesting than usual the other day.  It began during the commute when my seven year-old came up with an idea.
“Dad, you know what”?  Where this irrepressibility comes from I’ll never know.
"What honey”? Says I, still only partially caffeinated.
“You know all those water parks”? 
“Yeah, what about ‘em”? 
“I think if they didn’t charge so much, more people would come.”

Ah, from the mouths of babes.  Presented the opportunity to explain the economic theory of price elasticity as it relates to household discretionary entertainment budgets, in terms that seven year-old can understand, I just knew it was going to be a great day.  Feh, I don’t need no stinkin’ caffeine!  Thing is, when all was said and done she actually got it.  This one scares me.  Did I mention she was seven?  I woke her brother and sister up when we got to school, noting it odd in that they don’t normally fall asleep on the short drive. 

So I’m at the health club working the elliptical, listening to music on the mp3, and yet another political ad infects one of the flat screen televisions, no sound, just images.  The script for the hearing impaired was scrolling across the bottom of the screen and I catch this: “Russ Feingold will preserve jobs in Wisconsin” or somesuch.  Whatever.  But, I think about it a bit and, being the curious sort, I ask myself, being there alone in my little mp3 world I am my only company after all, and I say, “hey self, wouldn’t you think if Feingold could do that he actually might have in the last eighteen years?”  Self didn’t respond, recognizing this as more of a rhetorical question. Old self can be a taciturn cuss at times.    
 
My point here is not to beat up on Feingold (but if you like that sort of thing you will probably enjoy this). Fact is, I feel bad for Feingold because he was rendered a horrible disservice in the form of some lame-ass verbiage masquerading as a message.  It is strictly coincidence that the poster boy for political careerism happened across my visual landscape during the formulation of my thesis, which is this: the information explosion spawned by the internet is changing politics to a degree unprecedented in U.S. history, even more, way more, than when the introduction of TV catapulted JFK into the White House. 

But, to quote domestic goddess and felon Martha Stewart, it’s a good thing. We are still in the early stages of the transition. Considering the nominal growth in this young century so far, and how it has already precipitated a tectonic shift in the political debate, one can only imagine what it will look like when it reaches critical mass.  I recommend seat belts, and ear plugs may be a good idea too, because the screech of stuck pigs is sure to be deafening.   

Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, watching a 30 second or one minute TV ad to learn about a candidate is about as instructive as watching a Christmas tree to learn about religion, and not nearly as pretty.  So you have to ask, if a seven year old can grasp a basic economic concept in a couple of minutes, why do political media mavens insist on spewing such nonsensical drivel?  Though we try to ignore the obvious sometimes, it just might be that they really do think voters are dumber than a second grader. I am open to other possibilities, but bear me out.  

I sincerely hope this is not wishful thinking but I sense a growing flippancy toward political ads in general.  The written word has already eclipsd traditional media on the internet, and as video becomes more prevalent, the usefulness of broadcast television will continue to erode.  Some big dots in the larger political debate are becoming more apparent, and their connection inevitable.  The only people who find this frightening are the political consultants compensated by a percentage of airtime purchased. Oh well. If these are the same people responsible for ad copy like the Feingold ad, that’s a good thing too. Cue the pigsticker.   

Dots?  First, new media is unencumbered by prepackaged time segments, schedules, writing style constraints, and political correctness.  The flexibility of expression lends itself better to the presentation of complex ideas. The second is that news consumers have more control of their news consumption, due not only to the increase in supply, but also the previously unavailable control of when to consume.  The third is they are now equipped to be their own quality control monitors.  Now, when a consumer’s inner BS alarm goes off, they are only a few keystrokes away from verification.  The fourth, and probably the most debilitating, and fatal if we are lucky, to old media, is that traditional media offers none of these features.

Connection? The more the dots above are recognized the more folks will realize that the overly simplified political messages we’ve been force - fed for years represents a truly remarkable trifecta of inferiority; it contorts the issues, belies its purported seriousness, and insults its intended audience. No wonder media stocks are plummeting and media employment is at a 15 year low.  

Because it is the only way it fits the format, marketing and packaging candidates like breakfast cereal in 30 second or one-minute sound bites has to be oversimplified. Unfortunately, name-calling, negative innuendo, and character attacks is about as simple as it gets.  Subsequently we are deluged with attack ads made up of selectively dissected, dissembled, out of context, and rearranged message bits,mostly because the mix is more format friendly.  Both sides produce this garbage, so neither is innocent. I am sure my liberal friends have noticed the same thing from their angle.

With contents like that why should voters give any more thought to a candidate than they would their breakfast cereal, especially when they know the messenger could have provided much more intellectually nourishing contents, had they only chosen a better package?  As more news consumers become accustomed to the vastly superior alternative medium, more will cast a skeptical eye on campaigns that decides to use a medium that treats them like idiots. So, to a point, the media really is the message. Somewhere Marshall McLuhan nods .   

The growing and unstoppable avalanche of alternative information unleashed by the internet has enabled countless keyboard activists to be their own bullshit detectors and town criers.  This phenomena was cleverly coined an Army of Davids by the author of the same-named book, uber-blogger Glen Reynolds at Instapundit . Not subject to agenda driven editors this rabble is free to spout and shout whatever they want, the only editing being their own.  But, it is buttressed by the knowledge that their own bullshit can be just as easily detected and called out by their readers, and each other. The cleansing action of open competition comes into play.  The old, commercial driven, content-controlling news institution is getting it's ass kicked by a new, vibrant, organic, small d democratic, multi-tentacled upstart. It's a good thing. 

No one is claiming it’s pretty, or that it might become so.  Remember, at least part of the demise of the old school is a suspicion of its neat and tidy packaging.  To hell with the package, it’s the contents that matter. We should all welcome the expansion of free speech, brought about by the grass roots expansion of free press, brought about by the expansion of information delivery, brought about by the Internet. These are all good things. 

We are in an exciting, but in many ways unsettling, time.  As a tool for shining the light of transparency into the dark corners of our power structure, this one has a cajillion candlepower capacity.  Just imagine the possibilities when dialed up to full brightness.  The lack of precedence, to be sure, can be unnerving, scary even, but I submit a good portion of that discomfort is bourn of our conditioned reliance on a previously trustworthy media monolith.

The information explosion is prying the heretofore-monopolized narrative from the hands of that monolith, resulting in a commensurate decrease of its influence.  That is almost as gratifying as the increase in freedom itself.  But hey, what’s the fun in picking sides if you can't indulge in a little schadenfruede ? Seeing the light intensity scamper corrupt cockroaches in the process is just bonus.
     
I blame Gore, internet inventor.