Media Criticism

I love the idea that Rolling Stone feels it has the political clout to sway an election before the Democratic primaries are done. I complimented Matt Taibbi about his solid reporting on the political scene but I would hope that Mr. Taibbi told the editors of the magazine that most of the primaries are over. I don’t think Rolling Stone has become a Pennsylvania publication and it doesn’t seem likely that this endorsement will do well in places like Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky. I am sure other readers of the magazine are pondering why a rock magazine is bothering with this endorsement during the primary process.

I know that Rolling Stone waited in the past to throw its hat into the ring for Democratic candidates (there are few doubts about their political affiliations). Al Gore and John Kerry got the magazine’s blessing well into the general election season. The primaries are protracted due to the impressive qualifications of Senators Obama and Clinton but I am sure there are plenty of other issues that the magazine could cover. Rolling Stone could just put Red Hot Chili Peppers, Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones (the center of their musical universe) on the cover while waiting for the final field to emerge.

The larger issue with Rolling Stone’s recent endorsement is the decreasing impact of endorsements at large. The magazine has always been a supporter of liberal ideas while bucking the mainstream Democratic establishment in many articles. I have never run across a conservative music magazine that offers an endorsement of Republican candidates. There are many problems with endorsements including the lack of credibility by supportive politicians, business owners and activists. Rolling Stone just doesn’t have the political clout that it wants to have. The editors should continue to uncover problems in American politics sandwiched between flashy pictures of Amy Winehouse and the latest interview with the guy from Maroon 5. A music magazine with a few articles on politics will never gain credibility with activists in the same way that Roll Call will never be read by hipsters looking for CD reviews.

I have a lukewarm relationship with Rolling Stone. I hate the fawning reporters who glorify people like Kid Rock, T.I. and other musicians who already have plenty of people sucking up to them. The portions of Rolling Stone that I enjoy have nothing to do with music. I will use the latest issue with a Johnny Depp cover story as an example. I could care less about Sweeney Todd and Depp’s musical acumen but I loved stories on Dr. Drew and Matt Taibbi’s scathing rebuke of the political media.

I will focus my attention on Taibbi’s work in this post. This regular contributor to Rolling Stone has infiltrated the Republican Party as a volunteer for the purpose of exposing the failings of the party at its nadir. His keen eye for politics may seem wasted in Rolling Stone but a magazine aimed at younger readers needs a reporter like Taibbi.

The story I refer to, “Merchants of Trivia,� takes the media to task for the tone of the political dialogue during the 2008 primary season. I loved Taibbi’s description of the cub reporter who goes from healthy skepticism of the spectacle in American politics to providing advice to talking heads on cable news. His eyewitness report of cameras snapping photos of Obama supporters throwing out T-shirts show gives a view of how ridiculous American politics has become that sounds like it is coming from an outside observer.

If Taibbi worked for MSNBC, The Washington Post or a blog like Politico (which he skewers), his voice would be silenced. I may dislike the music reviews and interviews in Rolling Stone but I will continue to read it because Matt Taibbi and others are keeping an eye on the process of American politics. Fellow skeptics need to check out the regular political reports in Rolling Stone if only to maintain hope that someone cares about reporting instead of dictating a horse race.