Political rant that's not really about politics

I have to go on a little bit of a rant here, because there are things about what's usually referred to as the mainstream media that are driving me crazy. Actually, they're not driving me crazy; that's a euphemism. They're making me mad.

 The usual complaint about the big political conventions is that nothing really happens, they're just a show. It's all choreographed, there's no action (all the stuff going on in smoke-filled rooms) and so forth. I am in no way an expert on politics or political conventions, but it occurs to me that the purpose of the political convention is (1) nominate a candidate, and (2) introduce and promote that candidate to the viewers, listeners, readers, whatever. Makes sense, right?

And the networks and the newspapers complain about how it's not news. The New York Times has three fairly highly regarded Washington correspondents at the convention, and they're having a live chat while it's going on. On the first night, which in general was pretty dramatic because of behavior of a small group of Sanders supporters, they could not have been more blasé. Someone gives a speech saying something the Republicans aren't going to like that they'll jump on that. But in general, there's nothing about what any of the speakers saying, nothing about the political content or any attempts to explain why what they're saying might be interesting or relevant to anyone who might be reading this chat. Instead, the conversation is completely meta. How's the convention "going" in their opinions. They sound bored. Completely jaded. Don't care. Does that seem right? Elizabeth Warren spent a half hour clearly and systematically pointing out the differences between Clinton and Trump. Is that not worthwhile to note? 

So on the second night, they put their focus was how many actors or otherwise famous people were speaking. Did they listen to anything they said? Does any of it have any interest or import or is it something that might resonate with somebody out in the rest of the country? No discussion of it at all. Just, yawn, another celebrity, this is really just turning into a bunch of stars, blah blah blah. I think one of them even referred to it as a snooze fest.

This is part of why newspapers, even sometimes great ones like the New York Times, are dying. Any correspondent behaving like these three are should be fired. They are not doing their job. If they can't find something interesting in it, they shouldn't be there covering it. They probably shouldn't even be a reporter anymore because they're burnt out and useless. I spent the first hour during the convention listening to a webinar on how to use the calculator to explain a particular calculus concept. It was an hour long, it probably contained five minutes that were specifically relevant to the purported topic at hand. The rest of it was all talk around the concept itself and how the teachers running it presented the topic, which was absolutely not the point of it. And the calculator part of it seemed more like a promotional vehicle Texas Instruments' more advanced calculators than an explanation of how to use the calculator that 90% of people use.

But you know, I sat through it, even though I didn't particularly feel like it and you can ask my wife, were my complaints anything beyond what I just wrote here, which are specifically about the content? No they weren't, and I learned a couple of things that'll be useful what they teach the topic in calculus. Plus, the demonstration technology they were using was something I've never seen before and am now downloading a trial version to try using myself. I think it's going to be extremely helpful in teaching all of my classes.

If someone is bored, in any circumstance, it says more about the boree than the borer. The only way to be bored is to have nothing interesting going on in your brain, and the only reason that that should be happening is that you're not trying. And that's precisely these people were doing; they were not trying.  Maybe they took the "chat" part of live chat too literally, and thought they should chat just like if they were sitting at a bar watching it after a couple beers after a long exhausting day at work. That's fine for what it is, but that's not what they were supposed to be doing.

There are huge fundamental issues in this campaign, regardless of how you feel about the two candidates. Is there really nothing happening in four hours at a political convention that has any bearing on that whatsoever? Does that sound ridiculous to you? It does to me. It's only possible if you're not paying attention and you're not listening and you're not thinking. And people who are doing that don't belong covering news events for anybody else.