Openness and selection in politics

Discussing Samantha Power's  resignation, Gideon Rachman says:

In an ideal world, politicians and their advisers would be able to talk openly about their real thoughts on trade or Iraq – and admit to doubts or disagreements. That would be an adult way to conduct debates. But it would also be politically impossible.In the real world, “off the record” is the next best thing. If this journalistic convention were simply abolished, political debate would become even more cautious, simplistic and dishonest.

This takes for granted precisely what should be questioned. Why should adult debate be politically impossible?
A big part of the blame for this lies with Gideon's fellow journalists. They present doubt and disagreement as indecisiveness, incompetence and splits - not as what they are, which is a mature acknowledgement of the complexity of human affairs.
And they have a vested interest in off the record briefings. These give the select journalists who have privileged access an informational edge, which keeps them in work. If politics were wholly open, they'd have to think and research for themselves - which would put a lot of them on the dole.
This is why so many of us hold the MSM in such contempt. It acts as a filter, kicking out of politics good intelligent people like Ms Power whilst promoting vacuous managerialists who can play by the rules.
In this sense, the MSM acts in the opposite way to markets. The great virtue of markets is that they (sometimes) weed out idiots and incompetents; firms who sell over-priced crap eventually go bust.
But thanks to the MSM, the opposite happens in politics; it's those who offer quality who get booted out.

Comments

[Luis Enrique]

You've nailed it. Politicians issue nothing but impregnable teflon blandishments, because if they ever do anything else, the fourth estate jumps all over them.

When we see a politician spewing bilge on the telly, we ought to direct our anger at the interviewer.

(or, to be fair to the better interviewers, at the other journalists who will leap on any opportunity for a 'story' that might arise from the interview)

[Luis Enrique]

and we ought to blame ourselves, who choose to buy the papers and watch the telly that gives us sensationalist 'stories' rather than sensible analysis

[Tom Freeman]

Dead right. The MSM pretty much have an oligopsony on political statements (they, not the general public, are the primary consumers), and so the suppliers of those statements tailor their goods towards the crude tastes of this narrow market.

[ad]

"Why should adult debate be politically impossible?"

Because the sides are not trying to decide on the One True Answer. They are trying to get the electorate to vote for them.

And most of the electorate is not really listening, so they have to shout loudly and use simple words.

[Scott Hughes]

I think the politicians and their crews are like PR agents. They are meant to look pretty and pander to the masses while not saying any of substance or saying or doing anything controversial or embarrassing.

[Scott Hughes]

I think the politicians and their crews are like PR agents. They are meant to look pretty and pander to the masses while not saying any of substance or saying or doing anything controversial or embarrassing.

[Paulie]

That one gets a five-nine from this East Midlands judge. You missed the narcissistic tendency among journalists though. They have to present themselves as 'speaking truth unto power' and they rarely miss an opportunity to present themselves as some kind of honest tribune. The word 'demagogue' isn't too strong for these shitheads.

Also, they're allowed to present a moving target in arguments. Most interviews are like a boxing match where only one fighter has to stand still. And too many of the viewers draw the conclusion that it is the politicians that are dishonest.

[Tom Freeman]

Yep. 'Blowing raspberries unto power' is a whole lot easier.