No hugging, no learning.That was the one rule of Seinfeld. After every show, the four characters could never learn a lesson, never seriously self-analyze and never change — ever.In the end, no matter whose life was ruined by their bumbling antics, Jerry, Elaine, Kramer and George carried on their self-absorbed lives in homeostasis, undeterred by past failures.Which brings me to the media — particularly, to political journalism.Several events this election season — be it the selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin or the discovery of an evil pastor — have raised important questions about what is appropriate for political journalists to cover. Was it appropriate for the media to ask questions about Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter Bristol?There are some legitimate concerns about the privacy, and most importantly, the relevance of engaging in paparazzi-like coverage of a vice presidential candidate’s daughter.Some, though, have claimed the media’s scrutiny of Palin is a part of something more sinister — a liberal bias against her and even outright sexism. Partisanship drives much of that conversation too. Media bashing is an effective energizer for the Republican base — don’t be fooled by the fake outrage.What questions, though, are relevant to voters’ interests and concerns?What role should modern political journalism play in our democracy? Does “balance” in coverage usurp objectivity? Objectivity doesn’t always mean giving two sides of an issue equal standing — especially if one side is clearly less credible.These are tough questions that go seemingly ignored by the large media establishment.While it may be appropriate to question why the Palins withheld information about their pregnant daughter, can those questions be justified in their importance to the electorate?With the country in dire economic straits — highlighted by the Lehman Brothers liquidation Monday — why are journalists not focusing more on policy?For all the information about the election — and there is tons — you are likely to find much more about McCain’s P.O.W. days, Jeremiah Wright, plagiarism charges and moose killing than, say, both candidates’ mass transit proposals.  It may sound petty to complain about the lack of policy coverage in presidential campaigns.But the reality is that major news organizations have wholeheartedly embraced the business model concept of news, where broad generalizations about presidential races are preferred to nuanced, lengthy and informative pieces — because people really only want the broad generalizations. To be fair, while there are obvious flaws in how news organizations are determining what is responsible and relevant to cover, these decisions are not always easy. Presidential elections can seem like far-off conflicts between unseen political entities greedy for power, but decisions about news coverage are made at every level of media and can affect local interests — and just like national political coverage, these decisions are not always clear-cut.Take Student Government. Is it appropriate to cover SG presidential candidates’ political affiliations?Those ideologies can matter — even for SG president. Current SG President Colorado Robertson, for example, is a self-described conservative. For an issue like concealed weapons on campus, that affiliation became relevant this past semester.Robertson’s last vote as speaker of the SG Senate was a tie-breaking vote for the support of a Louisiana House bill that would have allowed students with concealed weapons permits to bring guns to campus.  At the same time, it is probably not a good idea to make an SG presidential election a campus referendum on national party platforms — and it could give a self-identified Democrat a natural and unfair disadvantage in our campus’ conservative culture.At this point, you should have noticed there really are no definite answers on what political journalists ought to cover.And with modern media more fractured than ever and increasingly partisan, any broad consensus is unlikely to emerge.No amount of analysis — or angry columnists complaining about coverage — is likely to change anything about the way media cover elections.They did a poor job during the Democratic primaries. They are doing a poor job now. And they are likely to do a poor job in the future — which brings me back to Seinfeld.In a Constanza-esque way, the media will continue to bumble forward, into the future, in much the same self-absorbed way the characters on Seinfeld did in every episode. They will carry on seemingly oblivious to the damage they may have caused by pushing vapid narratives about the race, giving prominence to unreliable critics — like Swiftboating — and playing up the importance and accuracy of horse race polling.In short, make due — because the media won’t change. It’ll be a cold day in hell when Wolf Blitzer leads a roundtable discussion about the role of modern media in our democratic society. —-contact Nate Monroe at [email protected]