Why Have Conventions? Ctd

Andrew Sullivan —  Aug 28 2012 @ 4:44pm

Jack Shafer sees their usefulness, especially for the press:

What's true of the conventions is true of the primaries: Yes, they're heavily scripted and predictable. Yes, the news-to-blather ratio is huge. Yes, there are too many reporters chasing too little "news." But that's like saying that during a gold rush there are too many prospectors chasing too little ore. With that many folks pursuing a rare good, the likelihood of a jackpot being won increases. Perhaps we should be worrying that 150,000 reporters haven't been assigned to the conventions to work the event as cultural anthropologists investigating the power of social ritual. There's something spiritual about the faithful assembling every four years to pick a would-be king who jousts with another would-be king for the crown. At least an anthropologist could determine with authority whether or not the surplus of ritual has diluted the event of its spiritual force. Maybe that's the reason that politicians like Mike Murphy pine for a convention decided, as if by magic, in a smoke-filled room by a political college of cardinals.

Jeff Jarvis thinks it's just a colossal waste of journalism's much-needed money, estimating media organizations will spend as much as $60 million covering the conventions. Previous commentary here.