The last few weeks of national news media coverage have largely centered on hurricanes, both literal and figurative. From the power-packed storms to a vice presidential candidate named Sarah Palin, positioned to wreak havoc on the Gulf and the Obama campaign, respectively, little else has stayed in the headlines. This should be of no surprise, however, as both topics provide all that makes for good infotainment.

Hurricane coverage, for its part, provides constant live images, reporters in peril, a sheltered way to view the power of nature, and dramatic, personalized stories. Palin coverage, likewise, provides new election predictions, fact digging, and a constant search for out-of-context sexist remarks, all fully personal and dramatic as well. These aspects of coverage are just what the doctor ordered for news organizations, offering strong ratings which please owners. But the citizens who gobble up this type of content, whether because it’s all that’s on or because it’s all that we look for in news today, suffer.

Yes, hurricanes are an important occurrence and should receive coverage, as should the nomination of a vice presidential candidate. Yet these two topics are currently receiving more coverage than Obama or McCain, leaving many of the issues on the back burner.

We, however, will be expected to exercise an educated vote for the next President of the United States in November. Does anybody else think this a problem?

There is a virtual laundry list of issues which merit more attention. For some, it may be unemployment. For others it is education. For others still, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Darfur. These are all deserving issues, and I do not claim to know how, or have the right, to prioritize them. The American news media, however, does possess this ability through the agenda that it sets.

What then, do I want to hear about? My answer is simple: a border. If memory serves correctly the mountainous one between Afghanistan and Pakistan used to be rather important. Remember bin Laden? He started al-Qaeda there, and may still be holed up in a cave in the area. Yet the news media seems to have largely closed the book on this border.

Yes, the subject seemed like it might return to the national agenda in July, when John McCain told Diane Sawyer that “I think [the situation in Afghanistan] is serious… It’s a serious situation, but there’s a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I’m afraid it’s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border.” It’s fortunate that the issue was brought up, but McCain’s geographical gaffe — Iran happens to be located between Iraq and Afghanistan — received a laugh rather than a recall to the seriousness of the subject.

Since the McCain misspeak, our national news media and our presidential candidates seem to have largely left our involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan unspoken.

While Obama did say “Afghanistan” three times in his convention speech, stating that he will “finish the fight” there, whereas McCain “won’t go to the cave where [bin Laden] lives,” there was no mention of “Pakistan.” McCain, meanwhile, did not mention either country’s name at his convention

But the issue is a hot one. In July President Bush, frustrated at Pakistan’s inability or refusal to cut off attacks on coalition troops coming from Pakistan’s tribal areas, authorized U.S. troops to conduct ground operations inside Pakistan. Again, unfortunately, no national news media reported this until September 11. Yet eight days before the story came out, at least 20 Pakistani civilians were killed when U.S. troops opened fire on a tribal compound.

Yes, it is easy to succumb to distractions, and our news media are thankful that we do. Hopefully, however, as Afghanistan-Pakistan border incursions continue to increase, the media and the presidential candidates will give this issue its due. When the short-lived headlines are past, it may be too late.