Maybe it has to be close, because the media wants
it to be close. It has to be an exciting event
and a big show. The media wants to make lots of
money with it. It is like the Formula 1: if the
races are not exciting enough, simply the rules
are changed or the drivers are exchanged.
Why is always a hype in the media about elections,
although nobody questions the election system iself
(the long-winded two-party presidential election
system in the USA, for example)? Why does nobody
ask if the candidates need to spend an ridiculous
amount of money on campaigning and marketing?
One reason is perhaps that the media itself is
intricately involved in the process. The media
needs to hold up the feedback illusion in the
election ritual for the common voter: the
satisfying feeling for each single voter that
he/she has any real influence. The price for
the voter is high: the feeling is only an illusion
driven by commercial interests. Think of all the
money the media can make with advertising and
the high viewer levels during elections.
To question the election process would mean to
question the role of the media. The media does
not only present the result, it also takes part
in creating it. The decisions of the people is
determined by the collective consciousness: the
content of the major newspapers, journals and
TV stations. The candidates and the media
need each other. The more the candidates appear
in the media, the more famous they become, and
the more famous they are, the more they appear in
the media if they are unusual: a self-reinforcing
process.
-J.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
