MEDIA SELECTED KERRY, SAYS NEW STUDY
22 February 2004

A study conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs targets the nature of coverage in the week prior to the Iowa caucuses. According to this study, the media "appointed" John Kerry as most electable by showering him with favorable coverage, while attacking the details of the Dean campaign. Citing:

98 percent of the network evening news coverage of... John Kerry and John Edwards was positive... Howard Dean received more critical coverage over the same time period, at 58 percent positive. [CMPA]

But in concession, Dean is becoming a media hero again. Already, there is a sense of nostalgia about the energy and daring of the unorthodox campaign. Today NBC's Chris Matthews praised Dean as a maverick leader in the best tradition of American politics, leading public debate to the core values ingrained in our system.

Timing becomes a serious question, when public portrayals can swing so dramatically around issues not necessarily related to candidate viability. This year, everyone is talking "electability", as if one should vote predictively, instead of with a mind to issues, political solvency, and intellectual integrity. But reporting on the issue carries with it one problematic bias: it discounts the role of ideas, initiative, even the actual record of a candidates failures and successes, in determining whether voters will be drawn in.

In 2000, many believed the Republican party was going with electability, worried that McCain would not have the everyday charisma to mold himself to the moment, and so the party sought to undermine his maverick candidacy. Whether or not this took place, it seemed to be the consensus at the time that Gov. Bush had already won the battle for personal appeal, and that such was the key in a struggle with Gore. The media artfully overlooked the many blemishes in the Governor's background, in pursuing the story of electability, shaping a candidacy around the issue of an intangible "character" which was not necessarily in evidence, but was much discussed and proclaimed.

By November, the issue had evolved to a point where it was almost conceded that Bush had the character issue nailed down, that he was invincible on that front. Even as 543,895 more voters chose Gore, the media continued to tout the inevitability of the charming Texan candidate's accession to the White House. Issues were brushed aside almost entirely, as the media began to focus on the discussion of personal posture, intonation, and suspected disingenuousness.

This year, we have heard that a maverick is dangerous, because his appeal is too narrow, because the mainstream doesn't like a candidate who is rough around the edges. It's a surprising turnaround, because candidate Bush was lauded for being more raw and unvarnished than Gore in 2000. The issue is not the individuals, nor is it the outcome of an election: the issue is whether the news media are aware that their own self-obsession (citing opinion polls on candidate portrayals, running their own commentary to a degree far in excess of any actual candidate statements or positions) can drive public opinion, and whether they perceive the responsibility inherent in that fact.

The election should belong to the people, and the news the people need is information about the positions, not the polling, of the candidates. If voters choose to decide their vote based on the votes of their neighbors, so be it, but they should at least be offered real information about the plans and the policies of the candidates themselves. Too often, we see candidates, and even the President, glossed over in mid-phrase, as local news anchors or talk-show pundits offer their spin on the speech the public is not even allowed to witness in full.

It is now common to speak of the cynicism of voters, which is supposed to be the cause of as much as 50% opting out of even the most crucial national elections. But the media in general seem to offer a fair and rational basis for such cynicism: voters are disillusioned not only by the hollow rhetoric of elected officials, but by the lack of useful information offered to them by the presses and the televisual media entrusted with informing them.

The numbers in the CMPA study can be explained as a "conspiracy of convenience". The news networks, broadcast anchors, and even major newspapers, wrap themselves in the story of the moment, neglecting the more productive activity which would be reporting facts, positions, differences, and political science, because it's easier. They can borrow each other's words, blame one another ("the media") for keeping the story going, harp on a sticky anecdote with no public relevance in order to appear witty, irreverent or authentically unpredictable.

But the patterns are all too predictable: the story itself is buried, even when the implications are truly grave or astonishing, beneath a veneer of half-thought entertainment-style gossip. Matters of war and peace are presented with the fanfare and vacuity of a Hollywood tabloid show, by the most prominent and respected news networks... because it's easier, editorially, to craft a story than to follow it. It's easier to convince marketing executives that a honed and crafted product can be made to appeal to target demographics than it is to just deliver the facts and be watched for being trusted.

The cynicism is not the voter's, but the network executive's: it is the assumption of cynicism, distraction and disinterest which motivates editorial decisions to put hard stories out of view and feature stories about perception, prediction and inevitability. [s]