Are the media putting trivia over substance in the campaign?

The Associated Press

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, complained in the New York Times on Sunday that the press is emphasizing silly stories over substantive issues in the election.

Featured Topic | Posted 19 weeks 9 hours ago

Are the media putting trivia over substance in the campaign?

Two storylines in the coverage of the 2008 presidential election are starting to wear thin. The first is the narcissistic display of self-doubt by the media over whether they are spending too much time covering the horse race in proportion to the issues. The second is the lament that, since there are few real issue differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it all comes down to personality differences.Both of these types of coverage tend to trivialize what is at stake, and both reflect the media’s own partially misplaced anxieties about how they are doing their jobs.

Voters overall seem remarkably interested in knowing whether candidates have changed their positions on what seem to be matters of principle, have taken large sums of money from particular kinds of lobbyists, or have a habit of playing fast and loose with the truth. Given how much out of favor both the President and the Congress seem to be in approval rating surveys, there is every reason to give the voters a wider window into Washington.

Has the press provided a fairly comprehensive look at the candidates, the issues, and the people surrounding the campaigns? Or have the media done a worse job than usual covering the 2008 presidential election?

Ben likes: Press not doing its job?

James Joyner/Outside the Beltway

Here’s the thing: If the public displayed an appetite for these things, the businesses would cater to it. Instead, readers demand more comic strips, horoscopes, recipes, movie listings, gardening tips, "human interest stories," "good news," and so forth.

At the same time, though, the incredibly tiny minority of us who are interested in public policy have more ability than ever in human history to get that information in as much detail as we want, as often as we want, and at a time that is convenient to us. That’s a pretty good trade-off.

John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mitt Romney, and the others lost, not because the press didn’t cover them properly but because the public looked them over and didn’t see them as "presidential." It’s probably true that most people couldn’t tell you much about the health plans of these guys. But, really, who cares? There was never much chance that these people would be president. Why waste your time reading their white papers?

Joel likes: Bowling 1, health care 0

Elizabeth Edwards/New York Times

The vigorous press that was deemed an essential part of democracy at our country’s inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional articles. I am not suggesting that every journalist for a mainstream media outlet is neglecting his or her duties to the public. And I know that serious newspapers and magazines run analytical articles, and public television broadcasts longer, more probing segments.

But I am saying that every analysis that is shortened, every corner that is cut, moves us further away from the truth until what is left is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call strobe-light journalism, in which the outlines are accurate enough but we cannot really see the whole picture.

News is different from other programming on television or other content in print. It is essential to an informed electorate. And an informed electorate is essential to freedom itself. But as long as corporations to which news gathering is not the primary source of income or expertise get to decide what information about the candidates “sells,” we are not functioning as well as we could if we had the engaged, skeptical press we deserve.