Published: May 19, 2008 02:16 pm            

TV’s election coverage lacks substance

With the internecine struggles for the Democratic and Republican nominations in the presidential race seemingly drawing to a merciful close (Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul’s continued efforts notwithstanding), I look forward to relaxing my grip on the television remote.

I’ve been clinging to the channel-changer a lot lately, taking extra care to make sure it doesn’t slip between the couch cushions. I’ve kept it handy – not to bounce between my favorite hunting and religious programs – but rather to afford me a quick escape from the deluge of political campaign “coverage” masquerading as news.

Much of the coverage I’ve viewed on the broadcast networks and cable news channels has had little to do with the candidates’ positions on the issues that various polls suggest are most important to the majority of U.S. citizens. When polled during this election cycle, Americans have pointed to the economy, the war in Iraq, homeland security, health care and education, and to a slightly lesser extent the environment and immigration, as the issues they deem most important in the 2008 presidential race.

Despite these findings, many network and cable-TV news reporters have consistently emphasized “news” items unrelated to these issues, focusing instead on an array of other stuff, including the leading candidates’ positions within AARP, their church pews and dodging (or not) Bos-nian sniper fire. Instead of concentrating campaign coverage on what most Americans consider important, these networks have consistently opted for “infotainment” at the expense of substantive news reporting.

This emphasis on infotainment in much of the political coverage on television is not a recent phenomenon, nor is it isolated to TV, although it is glaringly obvious on the tube because of the nature of the medium. “Issueless” campaign coverage is contributing to an erosion of the effectiveness of the American democratic process.

As a direct result of issueless coverage, more and more Americans enter the polling booth on election day with less and less relevant information, increasing the likelihood that they will base their voting decision on the latest political “fluff” being tossed about by the pundits.

What, exactly, takes place in the polling booth on election day?

Voters review the names of candidates for public office. Candidates’ names carry meaning. Ideally, voters connect the names of the candidates on the ballot to the positions these candidates hold. This cognitive process of associating candidates with their positions on the issues helps voters make informed decisions.

For voters exposed to a growing tidal wave of “issueless” coverage, the names on the ballot are often seen not from a point of view with a richness of perspective, but instead from a narrow perspective that has very little relevance to a candidate’s ability, or lack thereof, to execute the duties of the office he or she seeks to assume.

In 1937, American philosopher John Dewey wrote that the “keystone of democracy as a way of life may be expressed … as the necessity for participation of every mature being in the formation of values that regulate the living of men together.”

Journalists are charged with facilitating conversation among the citizens within our democratic society so that these citizens form values that will help them live together. Journalists’ role as conversation facilitators is instrumental to the vitality of American-style democracy.

University of Washington mass communication scholar Philip Howard has argued that Americans rely heavily on this kind of facilitation: “For practical reasons, we agree to mediators such as pollsters and newspaper editors, who assist in the act of conversation by distilling opinion and presenting distinct, coherent policy options.”

These mediators – American journalists – should facilitate and help sustain serious conversation between citizens on the issues that voters deem important.

Conversation for the sake of conversation is not enough. Journalists must be tasked with sparking conversation among the electorate that will help voters make well-informed decisions on substantive issues – issues of import not to the journalists, but to the voters. This will, in turn, ensure that during those moments within the polling booth just before a chad is punched, a computer screen is touched, or a lever is pulled, the voter’s decision is grounded in a fundamental understanding of a candidate’s positions.

Here’s hoping network and cable television’s talking heads do a better job promoting conversation on substantive issues important to the voters – not the pundits – in the months leading up to the general election. Based on their performance in the primary races, there’s plenty of room for improvement.



Pat Farabaugh is a journalism instructor at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. He resides in Ebensburg.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.