By Brigitte L. Nacos
In the early 1990s, political scientist Thomas Patterson
published an excellent
book. In Out of Order: How the
decline of political parties and the growing power of the news media undermine
the American way of electing presidents, he wrote that the reform of the
presidential selection system in the wake of the turbulent 1968 Democratic
nomination convention replaced party insiders with the mass media. Before the
reform, when conventions were strongly influenced by power brokers inside the
major parties, presidential contenders made their appeals to relatively few
activists and leaders in their own parties who would decide the nominees at the conventions. This was best done in
person-to-person communications. But once the binding primaries established
what the reformers believed to be a more democratic system, the media became
out of necessity the links between presidential contenders and primary voters
and caucus attendants. In the process, the influence of the mass media
increased dramatically. That is why Patterson wrote, “The road to nomination
runs through the newsrooms.” One can go a step further and argue that the road
to the White House, too, runs through the newsrooms—if only because the media
influence who survives the absurdly structured primary season and who drops out.
It is true,
as Patterson put it, that the “news media do not entirely determine who will
win the nomination, but no candidate can succeed without the press.” Since
Patterson published his volume, the proliferation of television and radio
channels has intensified and so has the growing competition for audiences and
advertising dollars. As a result, even serious print and broadcast newsrooms
opt increasingly for infotainment or soft news at the expense of hard news and important
public affairs information.
Thus, what
Patterson recognized some 15 or so years ago, is far more of a problem today.
In their permanent search for dramatic, captivating stories, newsrooms are far
more eager to highlight the latest poll results, campaign tactics, and personal
attacks rather than deal with complex policy issues. This kind of reporting
contributes to citizens’ dissatisfaction with the political realm and, just as
important, fails to provide the electorate with a comprehensive, reliable
system of primary and general campaigns. Neither the drastic increase of radio
and television channel nor the information available on the Internet resulted
in a better informed citizenry and electorate. Given the media’s obsession with
candidates’ personalities and likeability, it is hardly surprising that many
voters opt for the one they would like as next door neighbor or drink a beer
with. And that, even after such mass-mediated sentiments helped to nominate and
elect the current occupant of the White House.
When I read and listened to reports and comments about this
week’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas,
I couldn’t help but think of Patterson’s critique of a presidential selection
system with the press cast in the role of a political
institution. Media organizations are in the first place businesses and, with the
exception of public TV and radio, like any business driven by profit
incentives. Since news organizations have determined that highly entertaining
and shocking news captivates audiences and thus increases their advertising rates, they want to offer precisely that. The
civility of this week’s Las Vegas debate between Clinton, Edwards and Obama was not the stuff the media want.
Under the headline “Scoldings, Regrets and Forced Geniality, but Little Fun,”
Alessandra Stanley wrote in the New
York Times, This was not a debate that was fun or frisky; there were no
cute experiments with YouTube viewers’ videotapes or town-hall-style star
turns. Even questions taken from viewer e-mail messages were not curveballs. The
evening was mostly an extended segment of ‘Meet The Press’ led by Mr. Russert
and seconded by his wingman, Brian Williams, the anchor of ‘NBC Nightly News.’ ”
Although in
my judgment the best of all debates so far because it was devoted to important issues of
today, most media accounts focused on the lack of conflict and nastiness and
ignored the substance mostly or completely. Too many in the media had hoped for
an all-out slugfest a la Las Vegas boxing matches and were disappointed that they did not get it.
In the Washington Post blog, “The Trail,” Peter
Slevin got it right, when he wrote, “The top three Democrats managed to be
both civil and pointed in a two-hour discussion that proved meatier and more
accessible than many of the public forums that preceded it.”
Indeed, unless you watched the actual debate, you did not learn about the beef.
Comments