The Presidential Exposure line of logic makes for just that: a good story. In, however, the most superficial sense—as an easy, provocative narrative that requires little expertise to report or consume (“The president: overexposed? Discuss”). It’s the cognitive antithesis to stories about the Afghanistan quagmire or the economic crisis or the health care debate. And it’s a question that generally arouses partisan passions despite (and perhaps because of) its reductiveness—the question of exposure’s propriety being contingent on how much one wants to see of this particular president in the first place. And “partisan passions” equal, of course…traffic! Attention! Links! Reductio ad Drudgebaitium!
All of that makes the question appealing; none of that makes it justified. “Is Obama overexposed?” may be—on top of many other things—solipsism that sells. But should it be sold? The answer to that one is easy: No.
I think the 'overexposed' framing device is kind of a psychological substitute for an 'overrated' narrative . . . given the extraordinary fantasies and expectations projected onto this president by his backers, especially those in journalism, in 2008. A crash to the surface of the real world was inevitable, but urban chattering-class folks, one of Obama's most loyal constituencies, are now having to scramble to explain the drop in popularity of the president outside their circles.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 9 Dec 2009 at 12:47 PM