Personalized journalism lacks depth.

LANCE BENNETT and other researchers have noted that many media outlets report stories of vast importance in a personalized way.

In his classic media criticism book, News: The Politics of Illusion, Bennett points out that journalists often tend to focus on the people engaged in issues rather than the power structures and institutional factors that he argues play a more important role in the development of such issues.

Bennett, Professor of Communication and of Political Science at the University of Washington, argues that personalization of the news leads journalists to select those aspects of events most easily dramatized in short capsule stories. Drama certainly is a good element of a story. And, journalists, after all, do tell stories.

Personalized journalism also fits the longtime news values of prominence and celebrity.

What better examples of this personalization can we find than in contemporary news: Osama bin Laden became the symbol of terrorism after 9-11; "find bin Laden and the U.S. can 'cut off the head' of the terrorist movement" became a common news frame.

When bin Laden remained on the loose, the attention of the Bush Administration and the media switched from bin Laden to the new war front in Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The dominant news frame changed to "remove Saddam and the Iraqis will welcome U.S. troops with open arms," and "speed toward democracy."

After Saddam was removed, the latter predictions did not materialize. So, the government spin, and media frames, then turned to a variety of "insurgents," a rather simplistic label for individuals from a variety of groups who are blowing things up and fighting each other for a variety of reasons. But, it would be too complex to delve deeply into a story with such a wide array of individuals, groups, and reasons. How could you get that into a 60-second story on the nightly news?

Just this past summer, we saw Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert become heroes or villains (depending on your bias) of the clash in Lebanon. Other characters in that drama include the leaders of Syria and Iran, who were seen as pulling the strings of Hezbollah, UN Secretary Kofi Annan, and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, among others.

Lost in the cast of characters were the historical clashes over the border areas of Israel and Lebanon, the dynamics of the religious differences and relationships, and many other factors that are much more challenging to report.

Elsewhere in the world we can see other examples of personalized journalism. The leaders of Korea and Iran are portrayed as threats to the world and crazies who harbor terrorists.

In this way, a very complex world situation becomes told within the either-or frame of good guys and bad guys.

Personalized news is found in most stories about the war on terrorism, and political or international events. George W. Bush, or any president of the media age, is given far too much credit, and far too much blame, for things that go right and wrong in the world.

Neither Bush nor any other president has as much power as the media suggests. For example, Bush can do little about worldwide oil prices, yet he takes a lot of heat about them. Despite his efforts, Clinton couldn't do much about the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians.

Consider relatively recent history regarding the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union. Reagan and Gorbachev were given much of the credit for better relations between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. It was dramatic when those two met in a summit with the world hanging in the balance. Who can forget Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

But many experts on that period of history will tell you that economic factors in both super powers, and the will of the respective peoples, had as much or more to do with improved relations and the eventual breakup of the Soviet Union as Reagan and Gorbachev did. In fact, those two men might have simply come along at the right time.

Of course, at no time does personalized journalism become more prevalent than during elections. We'll see it this fall with a very important Congressional election. The 2008 Presidential campaign, which will start shortly after, will most certainly feature personalized portrayals. Unfortunately, much of this personalized reporting will tell us little about the candidates' stands on the various issues or their voting records.

Some general semantics principles can enhance our understanding when personalized journalism gives an inaccurate portrayal of an issue. Indexing can be applied--not all citizens agree with or follow the will of any individual leader.

We also can use general semantics to see the flawed logic of a news frame that implies that "this leader said or did this, thus the population or his followers will automatically do that."

The principle of elementalism can be seen at the base of personalized reporting, which often portrays leaders like Bush, Bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein as omnipotent, standing above society with the power to manipulate it without restraint.

Personalized journalism seldom investigates any individual leader in depth. Instead it creates a rather high-order abstraction of that individual. To more accurately report on an issue, reporters would have to get into the field, talk to many more people, and observe a lot more trends and factors at the grassroots level.

This would be too time-consuming for most bottom-line oriented media companies. You do see some reporting from the grassroots, and it usually stands out above the rest. But, it costs money and resources that most media companies prefer not to spend.

So, the world is told through characters--George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein--who become superheroes or villains leading the rest of us around like mindless puppets.

We should be too smart to accept such portrayals. We should demand more from our symbol rulers.

GREGG HOFFMANN*

* Gregg Hoffmann is a former trustee of the Institute of General Semantics and longtime writer, lecturer, and teacher of GS-based media literacy. His latest book, Searching for UnMediated Truth, will be the subject of a seminar in Wisconsin this fall.