Does Mainstream News Overtly Influence the Elections?

The answer is obviously a resounding yes. The real question is how and why. Some of the news coverage of elections is of a nefarious nature and some of the coverage is plain and simple sensationalism. The first truism one must understand is that the news organizations are not in business to bring us the news. They are in business to sell their advertisers’ products so they make money. The news is not altruistic as some might think; they are practical businesses that need to sell their news as a product in order to get advertising that brings in cash. When we realize this we can see the reasons behind much of the news coverage, even the coverage of the elections.

When choosing what candidates and campaign stories to cover, the news has a vested interest in having a close race with as much color and infighting as possible even at the expense of covering the real meat and potatoes of the campaigns, the actual items and actions the candidates will pursue if elected. Case in point, one only needs to look at the coverage of the Democrat Presidential race. The two candidates who dedicated themselves to only the issues, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd as examples, received minimal if any coverage. Their qualifications for holding the office of President is actually considerably stronger than the three person race the press has given us through their coverage. Part of this is the public’s fault as much as it is the media’s fault. Just as water takes the path of least resistance, the media takes the path of easiest acceptance by the public. As a rule, the public is more interested in food fight politics than they are in facts and other tedium of the politics of substance. This leads to the media taking whatever steps are required to make sure there is first a tightly contested race and that the candidates in contention are the most colorful and make for the best copy and controversy rather than have the best credentials and platform proposals. This leads to coverage that is more style than substance and we are the worse off because of this.

Just as the coverage of the Democrat contenders emphasized style and flash over facts and substance, the same has occurred on the Republican side of the race. One example that comes to mind concerns Fred Thompson. Most people probably do not realize that Fred Thompson has posted position papers and proposals that he would intend to implement should he be elected on a wide range of the issues we are supposed to be addressing in this election cycle. Does any of this receive heavy coverage? No, it does not. The two things that are covered about Fred Thompson are his refusal to, as he put it, “I’m not doing hand shows” at one of the debates and his supposed lack of fire in the belly (always thought that referred to indigestion and not campaigning, even if campaigning can induce indigestion). Another example is the immediate flood of coverage for Mike Huckabee in Iowa as soon as his numbers showed some increase while Duncan Hunter’s campaign has not even noted an obituary that the lack of coverage had done to kill any chance he may have had. Maybe Duncan Hunter should have made some wild or erroneous statements just to get the coverage started.

I want to make sure that I am not saying that the coverage of the campaigns is totally free of slanted coverage based on political preferences of the mainstream press. This most certainly has a huge impact, either equal to or rivaling that of the bread and circuses side of the coverage. Many Fredheads have contended that the lack of coverage and the perceived negative only coverage of their candidate, Fred Thompson, is directly due to the fear that if he were given the slightest lamp on his positions and plans, he would easily be the Republican candidate and would win the Presidency in the general election. Where some, if not most, of these feelings are just as slanted as the coverage of Mr. Thompson’s campaign, there is a bit of truth to be found in this argument. Just to set the record straight, the same could be said for the coverage, or lack thereof, given Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. The same can be said for Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd on the Democrat side of the primaries.

The combination of biased reporting and style over substance emphasis along with the general acceptance of the sophomoric and shallow coverage of the Presidential race by the public will have dire consequences sooner or later. The importance of the election of President as well as any other elected office should demand responsible, honest, and in depth coverage with an emphasis on educating the electorate on where the candidates stand on the issues, giving particulars and their written and stated proposals, rather than the traded accusations and glib jabs given during debates. Unfortunately, until the majority of people take a stand to demand serious, unbiased, factual, and complete coverage of elections, we will get exactly what we deserve, fluff and sparkles.

Beyond the Cusp