WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Readers will recall the end of Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited, where the narrator Charles Ryder refers to the "Age of Hooper" as an epithet for the egalitarianism of the 20th century. (Hooper was the incompetent and uncomprehending junior officer, representing the flattened mediocrity of public education.)

I often think that journalism today is in a similar condition--call it the "Age of Al Hunt"--where the increasing "sophistication" of journalists in the ordinary sense masks a near complete ignorance of history beyond the last election, a total lack of philosophical depth, an absence of literary imagination, and a scarcity of wit. But beyond the superficiality of contemporary journalism is an even more disturbing problem, which was brought to the fore by the weekend’s coverage of the GOP Iowa straw poll.

We can’t exactly blame the media for making a big deal of what should be a small event. Straw polls are supposed to be a gimmick for building local party enthusiasm, and should never attain national significance. But if the candidates themselves, ever on the lookout for a way to gain an early advantage, are going to make straw polls a big deal, the national media will dutifully follow.

What was appalling about the media’s coverage of the Iowa straw poll was that it was almost exclusively concerned with the "horse race" aspect of the contest. Nearly every question asked of the various candidates on the various TV chat shows was about the divisions amongst them as they related to constituencies, how much money they have raised, and other measures of relative strength. Questions about actual issues were as scarce as rain this summer. Every once and a while one of the nostalgia shows on cable TV will broadcast excerpts from an old "Meet the Press" or "Face the Nation," in which national figures were asked for their opinions about things like the Berlin crisis, farm price supports, or crime.

Surely candidates for the highest office in the land might be asked, for example, what they think about the current spat between mainland China and Taiwan, which could easily erupt into war at any moment. But no. Instead, what the press most wants to know is whether Governor Bush ever powdered his nose. This is undoubtedly an exaggerated reaction to the baleful effect of Clinton. Having been complicit in the argument that "character doesn’t matter," the media now acts as though it is the only thing that matters.

The outcome is entirely predictable, and in fact is already unfolding according to script. The media are saying how silly it is to start intensive campaigning so early (but then, if the media didn’t show up, maybe it wouldn’t begin so early), and in "news analysis" columns downgrade the significance of the story they played on page one. Having given short-shrift to the candidates’ views on the issues, the media will wonder why people say they can’t tell much difference between candidates. After the predictable record low turnout in the next general election, the media will wonder why the people are apathetic. Journalists will mostly interview other journalists on CNN’s "Reliable Sources" to find the answer. Inspector Clouseau would stand a better chance of figuring it out.

--By Steven Hayward