Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Media and Politics: An Epic Struggle
In our representative democracy, candidates for any elected office need to find a viable means to communicate its policy positions to a large number of people. Before the popularity of television and the radio, nomination and endorsement by a large political party was crucial, for only a party had the bureaucratic and organizational capabilities to reach millions of Americans at once. Since the 1950’s, however, aspiring politicians of all stripes have gradually embraced mainstream media as a cheaper and more direct method of mass campaigning (see footnote 2, Chapter Eight in Leighley).
Relying on the media as your prime communication channel is not without its risks. While candidates try to use the media as an unobstructed conduit to convey their policy positions to the public, reporters have a very different agenda. With the goal of maximizing profit, mass media eschew extensive coverage of political issues, the information most relevant for voters, in favor of negative stories that excite and tantalize without requiring prior knowledge of the issues. Most stories the media covers predictably resemble a popular Greek tragedy: stories of prominent politicians at the height of their power brought to public humiliation by a familiar character flaw. Stories about the strategic environment of the campaign such as who’s winning in the polls are also common since they require no political background for comprehension.
The tension between the interests of politicians and reporters are manifest in the ’06 Senate race in Virginia. Two months ago, Republican George Allen was leading his opponent, Jim Webb, by a wide margin in the polls. Allen’s public relation team had a fairly firm handle on the type of coverage reaching the public. That aura of control dissipated quickly when Allen was caught on tape insulting a cameraman using a racial slur on Aug 14 (see Washington Post article). In short order, local and national media outlets swarmed to the story like flies to carrion, swiftly putting Allen on the defensive. In the ensuing weeks, stories surfaced about Allen’s past connections with white supremacists, an alleged affinity for Confederate ideals, bigotry as a college football player, and even his Jewish ethnicity. At the same time, Jim Webb, his Democratic opponent, has faced his share of controversy. He has been criticized for sexist remarks he made in 1979, rebuffing Nancy Reagan over a political ad, and anti-semitism.
In addition to besmirching their public images, both Allen and Webb have suffered in their ability to communicate their policy positions. In the past six weeks, the Richmond Times-Dispatch published fourteen articles on scandals pertaining to both candidates, four on the polls, and only six on policy positions. Coverage in national newspapers like the New York Times reflected this trend. Against juicy scandals, serious policy debate holds scant attention.
Regaining control of the media has driven both candidates to pursue opportunities to speak directly to the camera. Both appeared on September 17th edition of “Meet the Press” to emphasize their distinct policy differences in person. Allen and Webb have attempted to reshape the pubic debate with poignant political ads to the same effect (see body armor ad). Their websites are dedicated entirely to policy debate.
While mass media has magnified the power of political campaigns, it has also complicated it.
In our representative democracy, candidates for any elected office need to find a viable means to communicate its policy positions to a large number of people. Before the popularity of television and the radio, nomination and endorsement by a large political party was crucial, for only a party had the bureaucratic and organizational capabilities to reach millions of Americans at once. Since the 1950’s, however, aspiring politicians of all stripes have gradually embraced mainstream media as a cheaper and more direct method of mass campaigning (see footnote 2, Chapter Eight in Leighley).
Relying on the media as your prime communication channel is not without its risks. While candidates try to use the media as an unobstructed conduit to convey their policy positions to the public, reporters have a very different agenda. With the goal of maximizing profit, mass media eschew extensive coverage of political issues, the information most relevant for voters, in favor of negative stories that excite and tantalize without requiring prior knowledge of the issues. Most stories the media covers predictably resemble a popular Greek tragedy: stories of prominent politicians at the height of their power brought to public humiliation by a familiar character flaw. Stories about the strategic environment of the campaign such as who’s winning in the polls are also common since they require no political background for comprehension.
The tension between the interests of politicians and reporters are manifest in the ’06 Senate race in Virginia. Two months ago, Republican George Allen was leading his opponent, Jim Webb, by a wide margin in the polls. Allen’s public relation team had a fairly firm handle on the type of coverage reaching the public. That aura of control dissipated quickly when Allen was caught on tape insulting a cameraman using a racial slur on Aug 14 (see Washington Post article). In short order, local and national media outlets swarmed to the story like flies to carrion, swiftly putting Allen on the defensive. In the ensuing weeks, stories surfaced about Allen’s past connections with white supremacists, an alleged affinity for Confederate ideals, bigotry as a college football player, and even his Jewish ethnicity. At the same time, Jim Webb, his Democratic opponent, has faced his share of controversy. He has been criticized for sexist remarks he made in 1979, rebuffing Nancy Reagan over a political ad, and anti-semitism.
In addition to besmirching their public images, both Allen and Webb have suffered in their ability to communicate their policy positions. In the past six weeks, the Richmond Times-Dispatch published fourteen articles on scandals pertaining to both candidates, four on the polls, and only six on policy positions. Coverage in national newspapers like the New York Times reflected this trend. Against juicy scandals, serious policy debate holds scant attention.
Regaining control of the media has driven both candidates to pursue opportunities to speak directly to the camera. Both appeared on September 17th edition of “Meet the Press” to emphasize their distinct policy differences in person. Allen and Webb have attempted to reshape the pubic debate with poignant political ads to the same effect (see body armor ad). Their websites are dedicated entirely to policy debate.
While mass media has magnified the power of political campaigns, it has also complicated it.
# posted by Jonathan Noble @ 11:19 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
So here's a question: is it possible that without the "scandal" coverage, there might have been even less subtantive coverage? Can you say more about this "complicated" coverage?
Post a Comment
<< Home
