The media IS complicit.

Comon'....

And they love Obama so much, the press is self-censoring McCain's comments (and offering post-interview explanations of what he really meant to say).

Yup, they're a bunch of groupies - for McCain.

If Joe Biden were the Democratic nominee now, the republicans wouldn't be licking their chops about the prospect of running against EITHER Hillary or Obama!

Or Bill Richardson (before he fell into the LOVE BARACK camp) But withstanding both your and Hal's objections, the press is only reflecting the proclivity of US voters (and their market share of viewers/readers, if truth be told).

He has issues, ranging from minor to serious. As do I (although not nearly as well informed, I'm sure). The relevant point here, though, is the idea that we get the press that we want and that if we didn't why aren't the alternatives doing better (using PBS as the example). Alex's only issue with the book on this particular point is that choices sometimes do reveal preferences which is - like - duh.

I'm reasonably familiar with the Prisoner's Dilemma game but don't see how it's relevant here

I thought I was, too. However, after reading Slee's book I was astounded by how many scenarios map to this simple game. As to your particular points about how other's crappy choices make it harder for you to watch/read the choices you can make, that isn't the point. The issue is that people's choices aren't revealed in the skew of the news. Rather, it's a reply to the news that's offered. As to why they didn't choose Jim Lehrer or the Atlantic Monthly, there are myriad of reasons having precisely nothing to do with the quality of the news involved and the issues discussed. The mistake I believe you are making is that you are vastly simplifying the problem by saying that the resulting spread of market offerings reveals that they don't want that "stuff".

But I don't get why that isn't a revealed market preference rather than some kind of shell game.

Hopefully when the book arrives you can give us your critiques and we can see if Slee has answered your questions or simply wasted your time ;)

Elizabeth Edwards.....

Look, let's be honest enough to note that her biggest (mostly unspoken) implication was that were the press to have done it's job, of in her view focusing on the substance, "I Feel Pretty" would still be in the hunt for the White House. (I suppose it arguable that it would have been an improvement over who the Democrats ended up with)

What she (And her husband) fail to recognize is the rather obvious conclusion... that the substance Edwards and her Husband offer, simply put, isn't gathering the interest of the electorate, and that if it wasn't for what she considers divergences from the 'real issues', the voters wouldn't have had any interest in her husband's candidacy at all.

Isn't that a bit circular? There was never much chance because press never mentioned them, or Ron Paul, as other than 'fringe' candidates, playing on the idea that it is better to vote for a worse candidate who 'has a chance' than the one you'd really want if press says they don't have a chance (and how do you know they wouldn't if press didn't say that?)

I used to get two print newspapers, the wall street journal and the LA Times. Now I get the LA times on Sunday for the classified ads, and don't even bother with the entertainfomercials passing for news. If I want news (which I do, I'm a news junkie) I search for it on the internet.

News reporting is no longer satisfactory precisely because you try to decide 'what we should care about' instead of just giving the facts and letting us decide for ourselves.

Obama says he doesn't want to play "tit-for-tat" politics, but he and Edwards were attacking Hillary early on, and the media covered them because of it. Although Joe Biden repeatedly came off very well in the debates, he could get no traction because he was not on the attack, except for the occasional comment about Rudy G. only using "a noun, a verb, and 911" in a sentence. Otherwise Joe Biden didn't exist. Never mind that he is the respected Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Never mind that he doesn't take corporate backing. Never mind that he is known for reaching across the isle to get legislation passed. Never mind that he has forgotten more about foreign relations than Hillary or Obama can even suspect exists..........
Don't tell me that the media hasn't played a BIG part in this farce!

I'm reasonably familiar with the Prisoner's Dilemma game but don't see how it's relevant here. Why do the choices of others to watch network news with crappy content make it harder for me to watch Jim Lehrer? Why do the choices of others to read People make it harder for me to read The Atlantic Monthly?

I get why other people's desire for "If it bleeds, it leads" impacts my ability to get different content on a given outlet. But I don't get why that isn't a revealed market preference rather than some kind of shell game.

This is really very silly. In general, revealed preference arguments which don’t refer to some external set of motivations rely on circular argument and other forms of shoddy logic (see further Amartya Sen’s Choice, Welfare and Measurement on this). More specifically, as Robert says, vulgar revealed preferences claims, like the one that Megan is making here, completely ignore how strategic considerations impact choice. If the choices that individuals make are interdependent, as they self-evidently are here, then observed behaviour tells us diddly-squat about the preferences individuals would have if they didn’t have to take account of others’ behaviour.

You're simply looking at the end state and saying "see? that reveals what you wanted". Which is a belief that is, as I've said, quite demonstrably false. One only has to look at the prisoner's dilemma to see how choices made by local actors will produce results they did not want. According to your logic, the criminal wanted the maximum penalty.

Seriously, James. It's a very short book. Send me your address via email and I'll have it shipped today. I guarantee that even if you don't agree with me, it'll change your viewpoint on revealed preferences.

Oh, and make sure to see Alex's review over at the Marginal Revolution in case you think us lefties are too biased on the issue.

Similarly, USA Today was derided as "McPaper" but it has a much higher market share than WSJ or NYT. And People gets more readers than the Economist. These are revealed preferences, not a result of choices being fousted on people.