The contest for the American presidency is almost never about what it should be about. What it should be about, of course, is open to debate. Some say it should be about a particular issue. Which candidate can best revive the American economy? Who can solve the Iraq dilemma? What about global warming, health care, education, immigration, human rights?
If a campaign for the presidency were about only one of these issues, it would be a campaign too narrowly defined, but at least it would be one of substance. However, this campaign is turning out to be a Seinfeld campaign: it’s an election about nothing. And it’s the media’s fault.
The 2008 election is vastly different from, say, the 1908 election, and the differences are fueled mainly by the existence of a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week news cycle. Reporters covering the Taft-Bryan race a hundred years ago couldn’t afford to waste their limited copy space writing about silly, inconsequential things. Now those sorts of minutiae help television networks fill up hours of airtime. If you watch CNN, or Fox News, or MSNBC, you might be too appalled by the lack of objectivity to notice that what these folks are really doing is stalling, waiting for something else to happen.
Another change in politics in the last century is the complete absence of privacy. The news media reports on subjects that were considered taboo in Theodore Roosevelt’s time. This has an enormous effect on the country. First, it thins the talent pool. There are a lot of good people who would never consider running for office now. They might have first class ability, or good ideas about how to tackle an issue, or an ability to inspire and persuade. But these people, as most people do, have something in their lives that they don’t want splashed across the front page of the New York Times. I’m not condoning immoral or illegal behavior. I am, in fact, rather disgusted with John Edwards. It’s not so much the extramarital affair as the hypocrisy it represents. However, human imperfection is a fact of life. If we were to exclude presidential candidates for things like this, our history would be vastly different and probably for the worse.
If the media reported on the candidates personal lives in 1960 they way they do now, obviously John F. Kennedy would never have become president. Good, some would argue. I cannot agree. When I think of Richard Nixon, faithful husband, taking Kennedy’s place during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it gives me a chill.
By Nixon’s own admission, he would have invaded Cuba, likely triggering a nuclear war. I’m sorry, I’ll take the other guy, the one with the cool head and the hot girlfriend on the side.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with media coverage of this election isn’t the focus on silly stuff, although there is plenty of lapel pin foolishness to go around. It’s not even the lack of privacy, although I’m fairly sure the Edwards family would disagree. No, the biggest problem is that the coverage never ends. Take a break! Obama’s on vacation in Hawaii, McCain has spent some time at the ranch in Arizona, why can’t the media shut it down for a while? I remember a time, not so long ago, that if you watched a channel long enough, eventually they’d play the national anthem while showing footage of a fighter plane flying over mountains, and then the channel would go off the air.
There’s been a lot of discussion about media bias in favor of Barack Obama. And it’s probably true, at least to a certain degree. The reality is that media will cover anyone who’s a good story. The fifty people outside Lindsay Lohan’s house aren’t biased towards her, they just know that a picture of her getting out of a car is worth money. Especially if she forgets her underwear. It’s more or less the same with politicians. The media loved Bill Clinton, but did they go easy on him when the Lewinsky story broke? Of course not, they pounded him nonstop for a year. It’s the same with Obama. For most of 2007, all the stories were about Hillary and how she was inevitable. Then Obama caught on, and the media shifted to him, building him up. Then they tore him down a bit, breathlessly reporting that someone he knows said some things. Wow, thanks for the breaking news. Then they built him back up. And the cycle continues...
Still, there’s no denying that a majority of the media attention Obama receives is favorable. And that leads me to my final point. If the media is so in love with Obama, they should stop hurting him. How are they doing that? By covering him so relentlessly, by dwelling on every story and non-story that has the faintest hint of association with Obama that they’re making the American people sick of looking at him.
One of the stupid things that decided the 2000 election was the evening news test. That is, which of the two candidates could the American people stand to see and hear on the evening news for the next four years? Gore gave this one away by being pompous and condescending. Bush won it with unintentional comedy. And now, eight years later, the media is deciding this one for John McCain by overexposing Barack Obama. I’m for Obama and I’m tired of looking at him. So please, dear news media, find something else to talk about, just for a little while. And if you can’t think of anything, let’s see the fighter planes, let’s hear the national anthem, and let’s have a rest before the fall campaign is upon us.
