Why does the press cover seemingly trivial matters like the "lipstick on a pig uproar?" (Or name your own trivial uproar.) Is the press complicit--or even the principal engine--in making politics so conflict-driven and superficial?
Some noted individuals sound off
David Frum, Republican Advisor:
Mobilization through the inflammation of imaginary grievances is an ugly trait of modern American politics. It will only stop when it stops all around.
The English courts of equity used to say: Those seeking equity must come with clean hands. That is the Obama campaign's problem with the lipstick story. After hyping allegations that the Clintons used racially charged language against him, Barack Obama is poorly placed to complain when the McCain camp plays the same trick with gender.
Mobilization through the inflammation of imaginary grievances is an ugly trait of modern American politics. It will only stop when it stops all around. So long as media ground rules make such mobilization profitable for Democrats, it is inevitable that Republicans will follow suit.
Pat Schroeder, President Association of American Publishers:
It's days like these that I think journalists are really just fight promoters.
One suspects it is easier to cover "he said-she said" than explain the real differences in the different candidates policies....It's the Roman Circus model that's been with us a long time!
Dan Schnur, Jesse M. Unrah Institute, USC:
Pigs in lipstick. McCain's houses. Obama's flag pins. Does anyone care? Clearly, they do.
There's no law that demands that the press cover these things. But they want an audience as badly as the candidates want votes. And the voters who make up their audience are looking for clues and symbols as to what kind of people these candidates are. The media can blame the politicians and the politicians can blame the media. But as long as their audiences find this information either entertaining or instructive, they're going to keep providing it.
Joe Lockhart, Former White House Press Secretary:
In a country in love with reality TV, it should be no surprise that the inane will always trump the important.
The media has become a business just like any other business. The press prints and broadcasts what they think their viewers and readers want to read and see. Successful media executives are no longer measured on the quality of the coverage, but on the number of eyeballs they can deliver, not on breaking news, but packaging news. And in a country in love with reality tv, it should be no surprise that the inane will always trump the important.
David Frum, Republican Advisor:
Mobilization through the inflammation of imaginary grievances is an ugly trait of modern American politics. It will only stop when it stops all around.
The English courts of equity used to say: Those seeking equity must come with clean hands. That is the Obama campaign's problem with the lipstick story. After hyping allegations that the Clintons used racially charged language against him, Barack Obama is poorly placed to complain when the McCain camp plays the same trick with gender.
Mobilization through the inflammation of imaginary grievances is an ugly trait of modern American politics. It will only stop when it stops all around. So long as media ground rules make such mobilization profitable for Democrats, it is inevitable that Republicans will follow suit.
Pat Schroeder, President Association of American Publishers:
It's days like these that I think journalists are really just fight promoters.
One suspects it is easier to cover "he said-she said" than explain the real differences in the different candidates policies....It's the Roman Circus model that's been with us a long time!
Dan Schnur, Jesse M. Unrah Institute, USC:
Pigs in lipstick. McCain's houses. Obama's flag pins. Does anyone care? Clearly, they do.
There's no law that demands that the press cover these things. But they want an audience as badly as the candidates want votes. And the voters who make up their audience are looking for clues and symbols as to what kind of people these candidates are. The media can blame the politicians and the politicians can blame the media. But as long as their audiences find this information either entertaining or instructive, they're going to keep providing it.
Joe Lockhart, Former White House Press Secretary:
In a country in love with reality TV, it should be no surprise that the inane will always trump the important.
The media has become a business just like any other business. The press prints and broadcasts what they think their viewers and readers want to read and see. Successful media executives are no longer measured on the quality of the coverage, but on the number of eyeballs they can deliver, not on breaking news, but packaging news. And in a country in love with reality tv, it should be no surprise that the inane will always trump the important.
So is there any truth to their analysis?
3 comments:
Yes, politics are reality TV without all the water splashes or the money winnings. But to claim that people cared more about the "entertainment" portion than the "important" part is too much. When is the last political talk you have with anyone that involves about: "OH, Obama's not wearing a US flag pin! I'm not voting for him anymore!". Joe Lockhart's comment on the media is true... to certain extent. Unless you are watching the conventions on "Mad TV", you are not going to hear comments questioning Obama's patriotism because of his flag pin, or McCain's economy plans associated with 7 houses, or Palin's qualification as VP base upon where she applies her lipstick. True people are looking for entertainment even during eminent times like the election, but this country will not survive to the day "Mad TV" really broadcasts a real presidential convention.
There is clear truth in the words of these analysts. In today's society, everything is so influenced and connected to the media that things are often blown out of proportion or are taken out of context. The media keeps these candidates under such close scrutiny so that they can capitalize on anything that might catch the "interests" of the general public. However, not all of the blame can attributed to the media. A lot of the blame also falls on us as the audience. It is us as audience who determine what the media reports. Because we are so intrigued by trivial matters, the media reports them to satisfy our interests.
The responses above are, in fact, completely true. They show that the news has lost the majority of its integrity, and no longer care for things like this.
The most important thing to the news now is being eye-catching. When you watch tv, you can see several "news" shows that have some form of comedy involved, and we currently have better coverage over celebrities than we do with things that might actually change our country.
If we have gone far enough to show that we want to see useless things like these, the media will gladly cover them for the views that they will receive.
They are about, as Joe Lockhart said, "not on breaking news, but packaging news."
Post a Comment