In large part the blame for this falls on our mainstream journalists, who all have papers to sell, but who often confuse what people want to hear with what they ought to be hearing. How many hours were spent discussing who was up in which polls, which states a certain candidate could afford to lose or how a particular comment will be received by the all-important working class? And how seriously were President-elect Barack Obama’s promises for an orderly withdrawal in Iraq examined, or for that matter, Sen. John McCain’s proposal to balance the budget in his first term? As much as possible, the serious issues in this campaign were not discussed and were given only lip service before the next sensational story.

Of course, it is not the responsibility of our candidates to answer questions they were not asked, and on that they were given a reprieve for which they could only be grateful. Here is where an altered definition of the word “analysis” comes in.

Earlier, a candidate would make some pronouncement and journalists would analyze it; that is to say, they would pick it apart for its various implications and ask the questions that arise. For instance, when Obama stated in the second debate that he would favor a ground incursion into Pakistan, he might have been asked: What if they object? Have you spoken with President Asif Ali Zardari about this? Are you actually prepared to open a new front?

However, in modern times, we analyze not the statement itself, but the effect of the statement on various focus groups. Hence the postdebate analysis questions could include: How did this “go over” with hawkish conservatives? Did Obama seem “statesmanlike?” Who “won” the debate?

Consider, for another example, when both candidates repeatedly refused to name a single plan they would have to sacrifice to the bailout. Tom Brokaw, apparently incredulous, asked three times, but we cannot remember the answer, because it was no answer at all. The matter was not discussed again (though it cried out for a comparison between our budget deficit and the cost of universal health care), and we are still under the impression, as a result, that no sacrifices should have to be made.

Lately, it has seemed the function of our media has not been to report, but to repeat. In this endeavor, they are aided by the legion of “strategists” who appear on talk shows and parrot their candidate’s propaganda, and also by Internet video, which allows them to simply play clips in lieu of substance. When the Wright controversy broke, there was remarkably little discussion as to how, exactly, he constituted an issue. Instead, the infamous “God Damn America!” clip was played ad nauseam. Ratings, as I understand, were never higher.

I might be accused of being overly curmudgeonly, of expecting too much of the shallow mainstream. To that I would respond that we still don’t know what Obama might do if, while he is taking the fight to Afghanistan, Iraq destabilizes. We also are unclear on how the financial crisis might affect Obama’s budget. We don’t know these things because they were not asked or, at any rate, not forcefully enough. However, we do know that Obama has won, that the constant attempts to tar him as a Muslim, a terrorist or a socialist ultimately failed. Though it certainly was not for lack of trying.

Pavan Vangipuram is a State News columnist and chemical engineering senior. Reach him at vangipu1@msu.edu.