I am sure the father on “Family Guy” would say “C’mon” when confronted with all the politics covered in newspapers and magazines (old media) and online (new media) that we now see, that in some ways is illustrious, at least for me, for its emptiness. Political writers and editors look on coverage of this, the longest campaign for president in history, as the blood they need to drink to stay alive despite the public’s declining interest in their work.

The coverage is mostly dull. It is not very critical. It plays into the hands of the political wonks who revel in using reporters to their advantage. I confess that I read almost nothing about politics. I do not watch the debates, a dubious term for mostly men in dark suits and ties who stand in front of cameras spewing platitudes. Reporters over-analyze every tic and tell delivered by a candidate, especially during those debates.

The machinations of the campaign are boring. I think of the media’s wasted time and effort in the coverage, as if all the current exposure will reveal that one major flaw in a candidate that will spell his or her end. Worse, nothing deters the second rank of candidates in each party – name them quickly, if you can — from quitting. Do they really think they have a chance? I do not. Nor, probably, does the rest of America. Yet these second level candidates slog along slow as mud, trying to raise money, showing up for the debates, holding news conferences, and allowing ego to dominate how they think and act instead of using good sense and leaving the political stage for other climes. But that is too much to expect. The public rarely counts for much in the face of ambitious politicians.

Now there is this from the Project for Excellence in Journalism about coverage of the war in Iraq. The number of stories from Iraq in April, May and June fell from 22% to roughly 15% of all coverage. That is a sad number to contemplate with American troops dying every day. It seems that most of that coverage was about the debate in Washington over the war, and far less about combat, the men fighting in Iraq. Coverage of a war demands war coverage. The major newspapers and their online sites do a commendable job in covering the war. It is television that fails its viewers. I know how difficult it is to have reporters on constant and frequent patrol with troops. The dangers are palpable and well documented. But if we do not show stories of the coalition troops in action, it is impossible to understand the war the men and women are fighting. To understand whether the surge is working, without seeing the surge in action every day, there is no way for anyone to make an informed judgment about its effectiveness. We must be skeptical about the words that flow from the mouths of our generals and our diplomats. After all, they work for the government and do not think independently, at least not out loud. It is far easier for the networks to cover Iraq as a political story, out of Washington and Baghdad. In Washington, there is less danger of anyone being hurt physically when all the reporter does is stand and talk. It gives reporters something to do with their time. We used to call analysis stories thumb suckers. There is far too much of them today when the war and the men and women fighting it demand fuller, better and more frequent coverage. But then I wonder, if there were more stories from the battlefront, where would the networks put them, what with all the features they play disguised as hard news, news you can use, news that they – the networks, broadcast and cable – want you to know about so you can have a successful life.

In the not too distant past in the spirit of tickling my adversaries, I advocated a one-day moratorium for all blogs. That did not go over very well and the attacks against me were furious and mean-spirited. I know that with almost sixty million blogs now in space, a moratorium would never work.

Recently I suggested that all the news organizations treat their Washington bureaus as if they were in a foreign country. I thought by doing that, we, the people might be better served because the obvious symbiosis that rules journalism in Washington might be tougher and thus, more honest. That, notion, also did not fly.

My latest suggestion for the media is that no one, and I mean no one, TV, old media, new media, whatever media you can think of, should cover politics for 24 hours, designed to stop all at the same time no matter what the news cycle. I am willing to bet the house that people will not miss what they did not see or hear. The press should do nothing even as the candidates continue to fill the surrounding political air with their often-suspect personal visions. No sound bites. No made for media photo ops. Nothing political for twenty-four hours. The only coverage I would allow would be that of a disaster or a tragedy beyond the control of anyone in public relations. Think of the quiet. I know I do and look forward to the resulting silence. I can’t wait. Can you?