Popularity Contest ‘08
Pete Martin critiques the media coverage of the U.S. presidential elections
During the Republican National Convention in early September, John McCain’s campaign manager told members of the press: “This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.”
American voters interested in the future of their country might be disappointed that one of their presidential candidates attempted to avoid a substantive discussion of policy differences during the election season. But campaigns are free to run themselves as they choose (within, hopefully, some bounds of decency), and McCain’s revulsion towards issues merely reflected the political realities of 2008. Sometime after they sent George W. Bush to a second term and gave him a Congress that would rubberstamp his agenda, voters sickened of the Republican Party and its policies. So McCain, forewarned by the Democratic sweep of both houses of Congress in 2006, knew to disassociate himself from the unpopular policies of his party. No crime there.
When McCain’s campaign manager declared that the election was not “about issues”, he was trying to craft a reality that suited his campaign: one in which he believed they had an advantage, rather than one in which he knew they were dreadfully behind. So while McCain attempted to drive the discussion away from policy, Barack Obama – holding the winning cards, if he ever got to play them – attempted to keep voters focused on the things they claimed mattered to them. Meanwhile, someone had to decide what, in fact, the election was “about”.
“Once upon a time, we maintained a distinction between the news media and the entertainment media. Today, the line has blurred.”
Enter the media. Once upon a time, we maintained a distinction between the news media and the entertainment media. Today, the line has blurred, thanks to cable news, the internet, and newspapers’ haemorrhaging of money and staff. We are left simply with an all-purpose institution called ‘the media’, which informs us about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in the same breath as it does about our elected officials and world events.
The changes in American media coverage cannot be explained solely by new economic realities that drive the news cycle ever faster and force it to focus on eye-catching colour and controversy. Nor do they reflect a simple linear trend towards less relevant and less substantive coverage of important events. Both of these explanations may be generally true, but they don’t tell a complete and fair story, and they don’t credit the media with the vital role it still plays in American politics.
Indeed, we Americans still rely upon our media to convey messages and information from campaigns to the public. By choosing what to cover and how to cover it, the media gets to decide what should matter when voters go to the polls.
Here we come to the tragic shortcoming of the American political media. For too long, voters have been told that what matters in a campaign is who the candidates are – or really, who their caricatures are. Al Gore was boring, and a serial exaggerator. George W. Bush was a happy cowboy, who wasn’t too bright, but sure was folksy. John Kerry was an elite and effete Brahman who had spent too much time windsurfing and speaking French to understand ‘regular Americans’. Never mind what any of the candidates proposed by way of policies, or whose administration would better or worsen the lives of citizens. In the haze of personality, policy often got lost.
“For too long, voters have been told that what matters in a campaign is who the candidates are – or really, who their caricatures are.”
How many Americans can tell you today, so recently after the election, the policies that distinguished Barack Obama from John McCain during the campaign? On a few very visible issues, such as the war in Iraq, the candidates were well known to diverge. And party affiliation suggested other general differences. But how many Americans knew specific details about each candidate’s proposed tax plan? Or his ideas for public education? Climate change? Even health care?
These are all areas in which the two candidates had clear stances, which they conveyed through their advertisements, websites, and speeches (as well as, most importantly, their histories in elected office). McCain often avoided discussing issues, but he had distinct positions that could be easily discovered by any interested party.
Yet the tens of millions of voters who did not seek out policy information relied on the media to spread those messages. Instead, they heard messages of tone; not content. Of style; not substance. Of personality; not policy.
It was the media that allowed policy to slip away. In this way, the campaign and the election failed to fulfil their purposes. The media did its best to turn this election into a game, as it has before.
But, of course, media coverage at election time is far from entertainment. Its outcome determines government policies, which affect the lives of Americans and people around the world. By ignoring this fact for so long, the media hurt us all. And, by all indications, it will continue to do so as it covers future elections.
