I am a political-science minor and a self-professed CNN junkie, so election time can be as exciting for me as SuperBowl XLI will be for the Colts fans here at Ball State.
But even I cannot
wrap my head around all of the media hype involving the 2008 election. Every time I turn on the TV there is nuanced information about Obama’s exploratory committee or John Edwards’ trip
to Iowa or McCain’s return trip to the primaries. I love this kind of stuff - I would also love it closer to 2008.
Don’t get me wrong, I need the instantaneous satisfaction
offered by on-demand news and multimedia coverage. I like having updated news in my papers, on my phone, in my e-mail; moreover, I am accustomed to having this information in my hands in seconds. We
are so used to receiving information when we want it that our distant futures seem imminent. Regardless of political affiliation, I think we are all interested to see what a future
president will do change our economy, community welfare and international position. But we are so accustomed to consuming the news every ten seconds that we don’t actually listen to the current
news.
This is the chief problem with having the 2008 elections run for 22 months. Besides making “This American Morning†irritatingly repetitive, other important news is
overshadowed. I don’t remember hearing about Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Iraq on the news. I don’t remember hearing about the case of bird flu in Nigeria. I do, however, know
everything I ever need to know about Clinton’s current fundraising strategies. Presidential elections might be one of the most exciting times of the year, but too much of a good thing is just
annoying and it could hurt the candidates when interest turns to apathy around month 15.