Is it journalism’s job to inform society and cheerlead for politics? I don’t think so, but a lot of people do.

One of the freedoms people seem happiest to trade for material prosperity is freedom from politics. But not journalists. (Perhaps it’s our comparative lack of material prosperity.) We love it.

Here is thoughtful journalist and academic Philip Meyer, retiring, on his hopes for the future of journalism:

We need to learn how to sell enlightened understanding to the public so that it can preserve its democratic values. The synergy of mass media and mass production is gone, probably forever. Something strange – and possibly dangerous — is taking its place.

Do we need to sell politics to the public to keep democracy ticking over?

Journalistic affection and enthusiasm for politics does not transfer, in the way that – say – enthusiasm for sports does.

Maybe our enthusiasm is that of a narrow elite. Here’s Eric Alterman in the New Yorker:

[T]op reporters, anchors, and editors naturally rose in status to the point where some came to be considered the social equals of the senators, Cabinet secretaries, and CEOs they reported on. Just as naturally, these same reporters and editors sometimes came to identify with their subjects, rather than with their readers…

Aside from biennial elections featuring smaller and smaller portions of the electorate, politics increasingly became a business for professionals and a spectator sport for the great unwashed…

But hold on a minute, former players (elite members) often make great commentators on sports. Is this a communication-side problem?

The problem with politics is that it isn’t a very good spectator sport. Even at the very highest levels. There are too many people involved. Too few characters.

The ill-policed turf wars of Washington DC are a poor substitute for the 90-minute transnational conflicts of European soccer leagues.

Modern sports have spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how to make themselves more appealing as spectacles. Few of these exercises have involved blaming the media for the way the sports were reported.

Remember too that professional sports are very much spectator events. Limited participation is no barrier to their success (see Formula 1). And even where participation exists (little league soccer in the US), it’s no guarantee of the success of a professional operation.

You can probably see where I’m heading. Is democratic politics spectacle or participatory process? As far as the UK goes, I would answer the former (and Alterman obviously believes that holds for the US).

A few things hamstring any attempts at reforming old-fashioned democracies:

1. Not enough people seem to be interested in expending effort on the process.
2. An undemocratic international order based on states.
3. Are we sure we want a participatory democracy?

Journalism isn’t on the list. Sorry.

(This is my monthly Carnival of Journalism post; the Carnival this month is hosted by Will Sullivan at Journerdism)