How the media helps politicians duck accountability and do nothing

So I saw an article today that kinda hit one of my pet peeves about the media. Now although the topic of the article is gun control, thats not really my point here. I've seen this same issue before, but honestly its hard to dig up old news stories so I figured I'd just use this one. So with that in mind here we go.

The pet peeve of the article in question actually started with the title Gun Control Protesters Outside White House Want Obama To Do Something, But Don’t Say What. And continued in the text of the article where they quote a guy named Andy Pelosi (who as far as I know is no relation to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi) and what he said the protesters wanted:

“What I want is for the president to sit down with leaders in Congress and say, ‘OK, we’re losing 86 people [per day]. These horrific shootings are happening way too often. What are we going to do as policymakers? We don’t want to wait for tomorrow or the next day. Today’s the day."

The article continued "Pressed, Pelosi declined to offer specific reforms, saying it was too early into the Newtown investigation to figure out what legal changes could have prevented the attack."

They also interviewed the protest leader who was quoted as saying that he wanted the congress to make a “bold, courageous outline strategy that can end this scourge of gun violence in this country.”

Which was followed by

"But he told TPM [who published the article] it wasn’t the right time to expand on what that plan should entail.

“Not today,” he said. “We don’t want to get into any specifics about a plan. We just want our president to provide us with leadership. We can talk about specifics at a later date.”

And there in lies my pet peeve. The expectation that these guys are expected to have policy ideas. And the implication in the headline that the fact they dont is newsworthy. The media did the same thing to occupy wallstreet, they claimed the fact that Occupy couldnt tell them EXACTLY what they wanted done was a major issue and hurt the movement, just being against big banks and corporate influence wasnt enough  ect ect ect. 

But that's not how the American system is supposed to work. See a fully crafted policy is one that not only says what your going to do, but how your going to do it. And heres the thing, We, the average American's have no god damn idea how to do that. Nor are we supposed to, that what we are supposed to be paying politicians for. And those are not the only two examples either. Pretty much anything a politician calls a tough issue gets the same treatment. "oh you want abortion fixed? tell me how to do it" "Oh you want elections fixed? tell me how to do it"

Take for example, a local park. And lets pretend that people keep driving through the park and leaving cars there overnight ect, and the citizenship wants that to stop. 

Now what exactly is the easiest way to do that and how would you go about it? Well the first half seems easy, pass a law that says "no vehicles in the park" but here's the real question, how exactly do you go about actually doing that? putting up signs? having police patrol the park on foot? a manned gate? ect ect ect?

Those are all policies. But which one is best? I dont have a god damn clue. I suppose it would depend on how much money the city in question has, how many vehicles enter the park, how many ways are their to enter the park, how many police officers they have, whats the crime rate in the city if police are diverted to this, will local taxes have to go up to pay the salaries of the gate watchers? will another program have to be cut to pay the salaries of the gate watchers? ect. And none of that is information the average person can be expected to know. Which is why I pay someone else to figure it out for me. 

See my roll in this government is to find problems I want fixed. Then its the role of the politicians to figure out the best way to fix them. Then if I dont like how they did it I can vote them out of office and try someone new. 

But somehow now-a-days that system is being more and more corrupted. It's no longer enough to say "I want less cars in my park, do something" I now have to say "I want less cars in my park, and I think you should put up a manned gate to keep them out and not raise local taxes to pay for it, now go write THAT SPECIFIC BILL" and if you cant do that the answer from the media and politicians seems to be "sorry cant help you, its too hard/tough of an issue".

But heres the thing, if I knew how to implement all the things I wanted fixed, I'd run for office myself. After all thats what the job is supposed to be. I dont really see the point in having a glorified secretary to take dictation and turn it into law.  But that seems to be all politicians want to be these days, and the media is more  then willing to help them along.

And by the way its not just the public the politicians are foisting their jobs off on either it's each other. How many times on any given issue have you heard this from the leader of the legislative branch (state or national) when their party and the President/Governor's party are different. "Well we need the President/Governor to put his/her plan on the table" or "we need the President/Governor to give us a proposal" ect? It happens all the time. And again thats not at all how the system is supposed to work. 

Its supposed to work like this. Legislative Branch makes and passes policy (so they pass the "no vehicles in the park" law) the Executive Branch gives the finished policy a thumbs up or down, and implements to policy (so for example they would create a new office to hire the gate watchers for the new gate at the park) and the Judaical branch handles discrepancies in the law and helps to clarify. (is a bicycle a vehicle?)

But once again the system has been corrupted. See now it appears the way legislators would like the system to run is this: The executive branch makes the policy, the legislative branch gets to give it a thumbs up or down, and maybe make a tweak here or there, and then the executive branch gets to decide if they like the changes made to their own policy and then implement the policy. (and Judaical is unchanged)

And again, if I'm going to have the same person basically both writing the bill and getting the final say on the bill (by approving the tweaks) why dont we just streamline that shit by electing an absolute ruler every 4 years (or 6 in some states)? I mean really do we need 535 (and however ever in each state) basically editors on every law? Wouldnt it be easier to once again cut out the middle man? 

And lets be honest, every time the media hears a legislator say "We need to see the executives plan" and reports on it like its a good idea, thats basically the system they are pushing. 1 supreme leader and X number of highly paid editors.

And people wonder why the government wont do shit about anything......