Throughout the campaign we have been gathering the top political writers in the country, and asking them to discuss the presidential race. Today they discuss the media’s role in American politics.

Seattlest: How do you feel the media has covered this year’s campaign?

Jeff (NPR): I'm still waiting for the shoe to drop on the media's coverage of the anointed one, Barack Obama. He's like a perfect storm of taboo topics. I remember watching Daily Show last month and they were making fun of Barack at some speech-- and the crowd was eerily silent. To the point where Jon Stewart actually stopped and addressed the studio audience, "You know it's okay to laugh at this guy."

With that said, I think the Fuzzy Zeller Picayune has been unduly harsh to Obama.

Luke (The New York Times): We should remember that the media NEEDS a story, and if the candidates don't give them one, they'll create one. It's like everyday there's an issue due of your junior high's monthly newspaper. Sometimes you have to resort to the "Student Brings Kitty to Class" story. Now, we're a little bit older and our taste for news is a little more . . . refined . . . but I submit that it's conceptually the same sort of thing. Every so often you have to resort to the "flag pin" story or the "McCain is old" story. Unfortunately you're just not going to have enough "policy" stories to do everyday.

Austin (The Wall Street Journal): I think everyone's getting blasted. Though it seems that the Obama campaign is more equipped with dealing with it, maybe due to the fact that their candidate is not a 70-year-old cancer patient.

There was the Obama story in the New Yorker. The one that got all the media coverage for its picture not its content, was in fact a very good story that discusses the people who feel disenchanted by Obama.

They seemed to criticize Obama for not really being a politician of substance. That he has defined himself by not defining himself.

There's also the Jib Jab cartoon.

Ryan (The Washington Post): I think Lucas is right, they're just trying to fill airtime. And frankly, I tuned out a long time ago. Now, tell me more about the kitty.

Jeff: I'm going to start publishing a daily paper at my house. The 3738 Journal Constitution. Headline: Wife Hogging Her Side of the Bed.

Austin: I'm not sure I agree with the 'media needs a story' theory. Dumbasses all over America are ready to set up and announce their stories to the media. (ie. Anthrax suicide guy, crushed temple visitors, people hit by Robert Novak, etc.)

I think it has more to do with the fact that we all know that Obama's going to win, and the media is trying to have some sort of discourse about it. (albeit, a poorly executed one.) Jon Stewart's right. Obama isn't infallible. We need to push him and see what he's made of, or we might be in for a rude awakening.

And, honestly, I'm really scared of Obama. I can't place it, but I feel like he's going to disappoint us, Spitzer-style.

Jeff (The 3738 Journal Constitution): ...And that makes you a racist. Wait. But it also makes you patriotic. Hmm. I'm confused.

Austin: Just like George Washington.

Jeff: Getting back to Luke's point. I think news coverage does exist in an echo chamber. Where a story gets repeated over and over and over and becomes louder with each telling.

There used to be a time when news reported on what happened. Now, we live in a time with news analysts who analyze and interpret news events, and try to predict what is going to happen. It seems we're no longer satisfied with just knowing what happened... we have to know what will happen next. This all contributes to the amplification of every story.

Austin: Absolutely. The noise is deafening. But how would we function without it? We either have to tune it out, like Ryan, or try to find sources that we trust to be impartial. Not an easy task, but part of our duty as an American, no?

I think it's more of a problem that people are stupid and listen to the misinformed, than it a problem that there is too much media. (And a-way I go on my trusty steed 'General Generalization'.)

Luke: I thought "Spitzer-style" was a sexual position requiring a call girl and a permit from the county?

Also, can I write for The 3738 Journal Constitution? I'm thinking of doing an Op-Ed piece titled: Man Constantly Waters Plants Out Back.

Jeff: Counterpoint: Wife Makes Husband Water Backyard Every Other Day.

Austin: Op-Ed: Hired-Hand Confused by Man/Woman Backyard Water Confrontation

Luke (The 3738 Journal Constitution): I will admit that Obama makes me nervous too. But honestly, I'd vote for anybody right now that would get us out of Iraq and get us to a place where we just mind our own freaking business for a little while. Remember when we were kids and had this impression that the President and Congress were a group of really smart people making really smart decisions on a regular basis? The older I get, the more I think it's the same as High School student council but with more money and with more at stake. Power is popularity and popularity is power, and people are going to make decisions based on their ability to hang on to both.

Jeff: There was a time when a man could just come home, turn on the evening news, have the wife pour a scotch, and unwind while Walter Cronkite explains the day's events. Then take a strap to the Beav for forgetting to white wash the fence, grumble about the black folk who moved in down the street, and then put on his lynching clothes for a night out with the boys.

Ahh. What an idyllic time.

Luke: Is "take a strap to the Beav" a metaphor?

John (The Los Angeles Times): I just want to know when the movie is coming out.

Mark (The International Herald Tribune): Will Obama disappoint us if elected? I don't know how anyone could live up to that level of hype and expectation. We're putting all our hopes on the shoulder of one man, and we're expecting him to cure America's ills. Which is impossible.

I remember how much Clinton let me down, I couldn't stand the guy with his middle America pandering and waffling principles, but I didn't realize how good we had it. That's why it irks me when I hear liberals air their disheartened criticisms about Obama.

"He's too vague, his speeches aren't substantial enough." Do you expect him to give policy details from the podium? If you want the details go and read his hundred pages long policy outlines.

"That speech in front of 200,000 in Germany was really over the top." You're right, he should limit how many people come to see him and he shouldn't give such inspirational speeches.

"Obama makes me nervous." Can you be any more vague? Truth is we can't predict what he'll do, but we can hold him to his primary promise, to bring the troops home already. Democratically we have that power. That's more than enough for me.

I'm not asking people who will obviously vote for Obama not to question him, but just don't expect him NOT to be a politician. Politics is dirty business and I feel like people are just picking on Obama to prove that, "Hey I'm still too cool to get swept up in politics."

Which in my estimation is ridiculous, Obama is the best damn politician in a generation, and all this outpouring of inspiration is totally justified. If he wins this thing it will be the most massive symbolic political change in the history of the modern world, and don't try to tell me that symbols don't matter.

Tom (Time Magazine): I'm basically going to agree with everything Mark just said.

Anybody who has a problem with Obama's (justified) generality in his speeches SHOULD read his hundreds of pages of policies. Will he be able to enact ALL the policies outlined? Absolutely not; compare ANY president's pre-election policy to what they ended up be able to do. So Obama will be able to get to, say, 11% of what he's promised. But, to quote Arthurian legend, did Lancelot stop his unattainable quest because he knew it was unattainable? No, he still persevered, regardless of all the assholes in his way.

And women make me nervous too, but that doesn't stop me from fucking them. (I don't really know how to unpack that metaphor.)

But to be serious, I think the last eight years have taught us to be so cynical and jaded about ANY politician that actually this negative feeling toward Obama is residual Bush bashing. I mean, he HAS to be a demon, right? Things HAVE to be fucked up, right?

Luke: I feel like we're getting off . . . topic.

We also can't ignore the fact that news has become entertainment. Any intelligent person can't watch Fox News without realizing that there is a significant amount of showmanship going on. Do I think Bill O'Reilly honestly believes in half the stuff he says? Probably not, I'm sure he is confronted with some tough decisions about whether or not to spout certain things. He's successful, to a large extent, because he is willing to consistently frame issues at the extreme right of the spectrum. Is it good entertainment? Yes. Is it responsible journalism? Certainly not. But the line between the two has definitely become blurred in recent years.

As yet another indication that some of the best "media" these days can be found in the blogosphere, I found this site.

The site streams over 130 pro-Obama songs as a response to the media's EXTENSIVE coverage of the recent Ludacris fiasco. Basically saying that Ludacris missed the boat but over 130 other people have found creative ways to support Obama through music. I have yet to find a McCain song . . . except this.

By the way, the difference in musicality between any one of the 130 Obama songs and the "Republican Song" is ASTOUNDING.

Austin: Rich from Big & Rich has written a song for McCain. But it's not out yet.

Mark: I'm listening to the Obama songs, and it's too much really, still Obama is a great word to sing.

Obama, Obama, Obama.

I'm really impressed that all those song writers resisted the temptation to rhyme Obama with Osama, or the even more obvious "Barack" with "my cock", which is the primary content of my new song--"Like a rock for Barack"

It's due out in stores September 11th.

Seattlest: Thank you for your time.

John: And...and...the media sucks!