Triviality, Thy Name Is Hyman

As the election approaches, we expect more media attention than ever to be focused on the two candidates. We want the media to offer us analysis of the positions of the candidates on issues such as national security, the economy, education, war and peace, so that we as voters can make the most informed choice possible on election day. And Mark Hyman obliges us . . . a commentary about which candidate looks better on high definition TV.

Actually, the nominal topic of Hyman’s commentary is the participation of obscure groups in the election process, such as a web site that offers detailed analysis of how the candidates appeared during their acceptance speeches when viewed on high definition television (the site also features lists of what celebrities still look “hot” and which don’t in the unforgiving format of hi-def). He also mentions “Football Fans for Truth,” “Rednecks for Kerry” and an association of strip club owners.

There is, as we might expect, the requisite slanting at Kerry’s expense. We hear that George Soros has contributed billions of dollars for ads “attacking” George W. Bush, while “military veterans have challenged John Kerry’s claims.” Hyman tells us that the claims of Kerry getting botox injections “appear validated” by the hi-def (the website itself is agnostic on the subject). There’s more detail on the sillinesses of Football Fans for Truth than there is on Rednecks for Kerry. And then, of course, there’s the claim that John Kerry is the candidate of choice for strip club owners.

It’s not surprising that Hyman would slant things against Kerry, even in a commentary that’s about the triviality of the groups he mentions. That’s par for the course. But there’s absolutely no sense Hyman’s aware of the irony in devoting a commentary less than two weeks away from the election to such unimportant fluff. In attempting to mock the vapidity of election discourse, Hyman becomes the very thing he derides.

Which brings up a larger issue: who can possibly not be offended by this appropriation of local airwaves, no matter what their political persuasion. Here we have a precious minute or two of local airwaves being used to offer political commentary. Given the lack of information facing most voters about local elections (few state house candidates can blitz the airwaves with ads), wouldn’t it be nice to use this public resource for news or commentary on local races? Instead, all 62 Sinclair stations are forced to squander this time so Mark Hyman can attempt to be witty.

Talk about triviality.

And that’s The Counterpoint.