The feigned-outrage game

The most obvious reason is that it’s a political game perfectly suited for our new news cycle. Episodes like the Reid comment provide “catnip for the news media,” as Obama said, because of the new rhythms of cable TV and blogging, which intensify the old talk-radio pattern: polarized and combative, with guest experts and pundits chosen to parrot each side’s arguments with requisite rage. Verbal missteps work well for cable because they require little explanation (so the fight can begin quickly); they lend themselves to simple partisan battles; and viewers can readily align their own emotions with one side or the other…

The persistence of feigned outrage admits to no easy solution. Moralizing to the cable channels about their choices of what to cover — or to the higher-toned newspapers and other media that now feel pressed to take their cues from the Fox News or MSNBC fray — will not likely change anything. Nor will politicians likely forgo the chance to bruise their rivals when presented with such chances by the media. In this climate, any attempt to begin an authentic “national conversation on race” would surely degenerate quickly into keening and calls for somebody’s resignation. Ultimately, explaining all the subtleties of a linguistic concept like “Negro dialect” — or any other touchy subjects that could trigger such an episode — demands more time, patience and intellectual precision than the leading producers and avid consumers of our breakneck political discussions wish to indulge.