Ever wonder why TV news campaign coverage focuses so much on the “horse race” of elections?
They own the racetrack!
We repeatedly hear about a given candidate’s viability being determined by their ability to raise money– not by the strength of their ideas, or their records. We see coverage of day-to-day polls during the election cycle that reflect the influence of the previous days televised poll. A candidate such as Ron Paul is repeatedly left out of the pundits’ serious consideration, despite the fact that in the actual contests he is doing pretty well– especially considering the fact that he may actually be a Muppet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2cILGviTOTI At the same time we are presented with hyped-up coverage of Herman Cain and his ultimate scandalous downfall, Rick Perry’s brainfarts, or Michelle Bachman’s addled ramblings. Why this focus on the basest aspects of our political process? It makes for great TV! Ranting, divisiveness, insanity, and scandal are what we like to watch. Actual examination of a candidate’s position on national issues, or a serious look at their voting records in the senate is boring! Try selling ad time on a show like that. Whether we love or hate a Bill O’Reilly or a James Carville, we continue to watch– if only to enjoy the delicious frisson of our outrage at their remarks.
It is in the television networks own interest to perpetuate the divisive tone in our public discourse, to drag out and hype electoral politics as long as they can, and to convince candidates (and voters) that they can’t possibly win without the name recognition provided by massive TV ad budgets. Projections for political ad spending in the 2012 cycle reach as high as 3.2 billion dollars– three times the amount spent in 2008. By the end of October 2011, super-pac ad spending alone had reached 5 million dollars. http://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/ad-barrage-2012-race/230588/ Even discounting the hidden agendas of the giant corporations that own television, and ignoring the revenues of regular advertising sold on news programs– numbers like this can’t help but corrupt the coverage of our political process.
An example:
Buddy Roemer– Harvard graduate, former Louisiana governor, and four-term Congressman is running for the Republican nomination. The centerpiece of his campaign is that our system has been corrupted by money, that we need serious campaign finance reform, and he will only accept individual contributions up to $100. It should come as no surprise that he’s getting zero coverage– not even being invited to appear in any of the endless “debates.” http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/23/144137460/tweeting-all-the-way-buddy-roemer-continues-his-quixotic-white-house-bid
I find it frightening that an industry that has spent sixty years studying and refining the process of manipulating our opinions and desires has the largest influence on our political decision-making. Especially considering that even the most benign of their motivations is to convince us to “keep watching” in order to generate greater revenues. After all– we as a nation love tasteless watered-down beer, greasy artery-clogging fast food, unreliable gas-guzzling cars, and deadly carcinogenic cigarettes. Why should we expect to get any better than their equivalent in our elected leaders– as long as we continue to allow ourselves to be hypnotized by the pretty “lights in a box?”
They own the racetrack!
We repeatedly hear about a given candidate’s viability being determined by their ability to raise money– not by the strength of their ideas, or their records. We see coverage of day-to-day polls during the election cycle that reflect the influence of the previous days televised poll. A candidate such as Ron Paul is repeatedly left out of the pundits’ serious consideration, despite the fact that in the actual contests he is doing pretty well– especially considering the fact that he may actually be a Muppet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2cILGviTOTI At the same time we are presented with hyped-up coverage of Herman Cain and his ultimate scandalous downfall, Rick Perry’s brainfarts, or Michelle Bachman’s addled ramblings. Why this focus on the basest aspects of our political process? It makes for great TV! Ranting, divisiveness, insanity, and scandal are what we like to watch. Actual examination of a candidate’s position on national issues, or a serious look at their voting records in the senate is boring! Try selling ad time on a show like that. Whether we love or hate a Bill O’Reilly or a James Carville, we continue to watch– if only to enjoy the delicious frisson of our outrage at their remarks.
It is in the television networks own interest to perpetuate the divisive tone in our public discourse, to drag out and hype electoral politics as long as they can, and to convince candidates (and voters) that they can’t possibly win without the name recognition provided by massive TV ad budgets. Projections for political ad spending in the 2012 cycle reach as high as 3.2 billion dollars– three times the amount spent in 2008. By the end of October 2011, super-pac ad spending alone had reached 5 million dollars. http://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/ad-barrage-2012-race/230588/ Even discounting the hidden agendas of the giant corporations that own television, and ignoring the revenues of regular advertising sold on news programs– numbers like this can’t help but corrupt the coverage of our political process.
An example:
Buddy Roemer– Harvard graduate, former Louisiana governor, and four-term Congressman is running for the Republican nomination. The centerpiece of his campaign is that our system has been corrupted by money, that we need serious campaign finance reform, and he will only accept individual contributions up to $100. It should come as no surprise that he’s getting zero coverage– not even being invited to appear in any of the endless “debates.” http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/23/144137460/tweeting-all-the-way-buddy-roemer-continues-his-quixotic-white-house-bid
I find it frightening that an industry that has spent sixty years studying and refining the process of manipulating our opinions and desires has the largest influence on our political decision-making. Especially considering that even the most benign of their motivations is to convince us to “keep watching” in order to generate greater revenues. After all– we as a nation love tasteless watered-down beer, greasy artery-clogging fast food, unreliable gas-guzzling cars, and deadly carcinogenic cigarettes. Why should we expect to get any better than their equivalent in our elected leaders– as long as we continue to allow ourselves to be hypnotized by the pretty “lights in a box?”
No comments:
Post a Comment