Why should I care?

I read an article yesterday in the New York Times and I can't stop thinking about it. The head line was "News Isn't Wasted On the Young" and the gist of it was that the presidential candidates and the news outlets are trying to reach a younger audience and succeeding. Young people are interested in politics (and news in general) more now than they have been in decades, but that is not because today's youth are more interested in the news or more engaged, it's because an effort is being made to reach them.

I've been thinking about it for a day and a half because something about it rubbed me the wrong way. I finally realize that it strikes me as wrong that the news media should have to cater to young people, to make the news more appealing to young people. The article refers to the 18-29 demographic as "supposedly disengaged" and goes on the say "maybe the news gave up on them not the other way around". The last part of that statement acknowledges that young people weren't always disengaged and puts the blame on the shoulders of the people reporting the news.

I just don't think that's an accurate reflection. The news and the way it's reported didn't change until recently (in an effort to court, or rather hold on to, the younger demographic). The reason kids are interested in politics and the news now is that there are issues that they feel concern them. There's a war on and guess who fights when it comes time to go to war. That's right, people between the ages of 18 and 29. So, the people at war and all their high school and college buddies back home are concerned, they are paying attention and they are voting. That makes sense, and I suspect if you look at the statistics you'll find that young people suddenly became more interested in politics and news every time their countries went to war.

What bothers me is that it takes a war to get young people interested in politics. I know it's human nature to care more when you feel like something affects you, but what I don't understand is that young people think the issues that politicians discuss all the time (health care, education, social security, civil liberties, etc) don't affect them. The people who are receiving social security benefits right now don't need to care what happens to the social security program in the future, their benefits are ensured. It's people between the ages of 18 and 29 who should care what happens with social security because while it may not affect them right now, they are the ones that will be affected, when they retire, by the changes made to social security today.

The article says of this demographic, "they don't read newspapers, they don't watch news on television, they don't care about politics", but that "a long dormant civic reflex in young people is roaring to life". It concludes with a question, "can old media take this current round of speed-dating and convert it into something that lasts". Putting the onus on the media to appeal to young people, but I think the responsibility should be with parents, and educators, to instill that "civic reflex" and to teach kids that these issues that the politicians are talking about may seem like they don't affect them but they do, or the will. It shouldn't be too hard, it's a similar refrain to a standard lesson parents and teachers are always trying to teach kids: the choices you make today will have an affect, possibly for years to come, that may not be immediately apparent.

I feel obligated to mention that I am still part of this much discussed demographic, at the tail end, and that I've been interested in politics since well before I could vote. I remember debating the merits of Dukakis versus Bush Sr. in 1988 (when I was 10). What made me interested in politics at such a young age? Someone taught me that it was important to pay attention to the world around me and to care about things even if, on the surface, they don't seem to affect me because they might and even if they don't they affect someone and I should care about that too.