SEARCH
Despite Big-Media Bias, Candidates Squeeze in Some Substance |
|
The lives of real people will be affected by the outcome of the 2008 elections. You’d hardly know it, though, from the tone of many of this year’s presidential debates. In last week’s Democratic debate on CNN, moderator Wolf Blitzer and the journalists asked questions that showed how disconnected they are from real people and the real issues at play in this election. As blogger Jay Cost noted:
I really can’t stand these debates. And it is not because of the candidates. I enjoy watching them debate each other. As far as the candidates went—I thought that the debate was pretty darned good….
Cost says the major media are only focusing on tactics, personality clashes and wedge issues, and it shows clearly in these debates, reflecting “an impoverished view of politics.”
They concentrate everything wrong about the way the media covers presidential campaigns and jam-pack it into two hours.
Cable television was supposed to provide the substance lacking in network news. But neither does the job. A recent study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center found that newpapers, TV, radio and online major-media outlets focused overwhelmingly on politics and tactics, which made up 63 percent of stories, while personal stories took up another 17 percent. Actual policy proposals were the subject of only 15 percent of stories, and only 1 percent of stories focused on candidates’ public records. The study shows that news coverage this cycle is mostly avoiding the impact of politics on real people.
The questions CNN selected for the debate, wrote Brian Beutler, “aren’t written with the idea of informing people in mind.” In short, the debate—like so many others—reflects not the concerns that voters need answers to, but the obsessions of a small, insular and self-interested media elite.
It’s a shame because if you read the debate transcript, you’ll find the candidates managed to squeeze in quite a lot of substance.
In the first few minutes of the debate, for instance, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) challenged each other on the details of their health care plans. Is Obama’s plan truly universal? Does Clinton’s plan make health care affordable? Unfortunately, rather than allow a discussion of policy specifics, Blitzer changed the subject, over the objection of Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who rightly noted, “the American people are entitled to a debate here.”
Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), along with Kucinich, Clinton and other candidates, tried to discuss the complex issue of trade with China, Mexico and other countries. Unfortunately, it didn’t last long, as Blitzer focused primarily on trying to talk the candidates into contradicting themselves.
In response to a serious discussion of the No Child Left Behind Act by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Blitzer again changed the subject. Instead of letting Dodd expand his thoughts on reforming that law, Blitzer tried to drive a wedge between the candidates and the teachers’ unions that protect public education in this country.
Who really shone in the debate? Audience members who were able to speak to the candidates directly. As blogger Matthew Yglesias noted:
The real people, by contrast, ask about problems in their lives. The mother of an Individual Ready Reserve member wants to know about Iran policy. The mother of an active duty soldier wants to know about military pay versus pay for military contractors. An Arab American wants to know about racial profiling. Then the candidates explain what they think about these issues.
The voters are curious and want to learn where the candidates stand. Blitzer doesn’t care about informing the public about the issues—he actually objects when candidates try to explain their views on broad immigration policy issues—he’s just interested in trying to embarrass the candidates.
Social Security, education, health care and trade are serious, substantive issues, and they merit real debate, not 30-second sound bites and “gotcha” questions. (For a strong critique of the coverage of the 2008 political race, check out former campaign consultant Zephyr Teachout in the Huffington Post, where she challengers reporters to cover policy substance, not the horse race.)
At the AFL-CIO Presidential Candidates Forum this summer, real working people got to ask their own questions, without having their intentions hijacked by an insider elite. As a result, that debate focused on issues that really affect people’s lives. America’s working families would be far better served if the journalists took the lead of working people and took the process seriously. After all, we’re electing a president.
3 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Policy is boring guys, now if our candiates on both sides would hang at the clubs til all hours, forget half their clothes, and have repeated car wrecks-thats news worthy!! Just kidding, problem is TV wants to take the most complicated issue and get you to say on off up down yes no.
The other problem is that most issues impact a portion of our population, and as media whores you want the biggest black book on the block. Result is that when you talk labor issues media hears union issues, counts our members and dcecides we’re not a big enough demographic, ditto for diabled vets, the mentaly ill, poor etc etc.(even to the familes of our volunteer forces).
An audience member asked about the post-9-11 profiling of “hundreds of thousands of Americans.” Blitzer followed up by asking about the PATRIOT Act.
Wolf actually asked the candidates if “human rights [are] more important than American national security?” That’s like asking a mother which child do you love the most? To frame the question by suggesting that one will have to be sacrificed in order to accommodate the other is just plain irresponsible journalism; they are equally important, dude!
One of the best ways to characterize the breaching of national security IS the diminishment of human rights. Blitzer, get real! America deserves better than to be fed such a diet of dumbing-down as this.
Policy may not be as sexy as tabloid news, but it’s what makes the difference between eating steak or eating baloney; and I’m sick of this baloney.
And that’s the problem with the media today, and as you know, the media is owned by huge conglomerates with right-wing bias, at least for the most part. This is part of the larger picture that those who have the power, the money, own the bank are bent on keeping information out of mainstream America at all costs. I really think this is why your average, hardworking, struggling to handle the day to day issues person just gets tired of all the talk, doesn’t know who to believe, and just gives up hope. Gosh, listen to me - I think I’m there.