I’ve been checking the convention coverage this week, and I’m struck by the dearth of fresh, interesting pieces. Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick provides an apt description of one half of the problem:  

“There is always a rather weird quality to these conventions, in that these speeches are happening right in your living room, yet we in the press are somehow supposed to mediate the experience. We can’t hear as well as you do, or see as well as you do, but we’re supposed to triangulate your direct experience against the fact that we are here. As a consequence, there’s a lot of Media Hall of Mirrors stuff, wherein the press reports on the press, reporting on you.”

If journalists are supposed to give readers a you-are-there perspective but the readers are already there, it’s not surprising that much of the commentary strays deep into the Meta. See, for example, this post.

The other half of the problem is that nothing newsworthy is really occurring here! Not to deny that the experience of attending the Convention is incredible, but the speeches, with a few notable exceptions, are sanitized and generic. The whole four days is tightly scripted. And media representatives outnumber delegates by a 6-to-1 margin.  

Without new developments to report on, commentators have resorted to analyzing the irony, tragedy, drama, and triumph of key speakers’ performances. How must Howard Dean feel, knowing that he was on top for a while? How must Gephardt feel, knowing that the VP slot was nearly his? How frickin’ amazing is Bill Clinton? These are to some degree interesting questions, but they don’t lend themselves to fascinating commentary.

Anyway … omigod, did I tell you I saw Bono yesterday?

In The Fray Contributor