Their heads are empty, but they keep talking

Consumers of media have been conditioned to expect immediate feedback - a plane crashes, and we demand video of the still-burning fires. The talking heads of media rush into the path of our attention, intent on holding it for as long as possible – even if there are scant facts to report on.

With disasters and crime – the voice over is often irrelevant. Watching a bank robber spray automatic fire at police - live – the narration can hardly damage our understanding.

It's when this model is applied to less visceral events that it breaks down. The investigation of why the plane crashed is not something that has good video. Seeing that is not the same as understanding it.

Still, we ask for someone to help us understand – and the media, like an eager-to-please adolescent, spouts the first thing that comes to mind and calls it analysis.

With the initial reaction to Sen. Obama's historic and substantive Philadelphia speech, we've seen this pattern highlighted to a degree that should embarrass even our shameless media outlets.

Fox's Frank Lutz offered his probing analysis of how effectively Sen. Obama used the teleprompter. Other pundits analyzed the subtext of his stage background, the city he chose to speak in, or the proximity of Independence Hall. The printed speech is scanned for the required denouncements. These are counted and the strength of their language is weighed.

These are all easy things to pick up on and can rapidly be converted into commentary.

It's just that any commentary on these items is worthless.

A substantive speech is entirely unsuitable for immediate, live analysis. Despite this, we still have million dollar anchormen telling us how many times the President was stopped by applause during the State of the Union address (or how many times the audience stood up to applaud – or who applauded, or didn't). As if any of that has any value whatsoever.

We are told these "facts," because no other facts are available and they must say something. The camera demands it – even if the audience doesn't.

How would it be if the speech was broadcast, and then the camera went dark? Would the absence of rapid fire commentary by a battalion of pundits somehow harm our ability to comprehend the spoken word?

I doubt it.

-------
Late edit:
CJR does the kind of analysis of Sen. Obama's speech that takes awhile - and it shows that there is such a thing as a healthy interval between when you hear something, and when you choose to give an opinion.