Error Message
It is an old saw in politics that you don’t care so much what they’re saying about you in the newspaper, as long as they spell your name right. But back when they said that, there was no television, and now there is only television. Just ask Wilbur Mills, Wayne Hays, Gary Hart, or Bill Clinton. Today’s campaigns revolve around and depend upon television. There are TV commercials, of course, and earned media, otherwise known as news coverage, ostensibly for some newsworthy event. There is also coverage via press release, since so many are relayed directly through print or broadcast, often verbatim. On the national level, there are weekly news interview shows as well.
Since the historic Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960, television has been a maker or breaker of many candidacies. Some candidates have won with lousy news coverage but good commercials, and others have survived bad commercials to win in the news. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been squandered on losing causes, most of it passing through the hands of consultants and agencies, into the pockets of the broadcasters. No wonder Congress hasn’t found the courage to reform campaigns. No wonder incumbents are successful in more than 92% of their races.
Television has seriously undermined and redefined what we would think of as our national culture, but that’s another rant. In the case of political campaigns, the media corporations are interested in revenues, not public service. Despite huge profits, and monopolistic control over the airways, the broadcast industry can’t find its way to providing quality communications between candidates and the public. If they were honest about serving, they would offer alternatives to the existing trash-for-cash system.
For instance, broadcasters could clear a few hours on the Sunday before the election, and again the night before, to provide time for a statement by the candidates and their answers to several appropriate questions from the local anchor. That way, the candidate could make his case, and the questions could illuminate areas of reasonable doubt. Maybe the NFL should agree to schedule no games that weekend to nudge the broadcasters toward their obligation.
In the meantime, candidates are spending countless hours raising money to buy television time, when they should be meeting and talking with their constituents. Even in a state like California, with 34,000,000 people spread out around 158,869 square miles, the more people who have contact with the candidate the better. Word-of-mouth, interviews by local editors and anchors, can also bring the politician significantly closer to the voters than any barrage of produced commercials. Especially if the reporters are competent and ask questions that properly define the candidate, both in terms of character and the issues. Often, however, it is necessary for the candidates to take control of the interview process to deliver an effective message.
Because most candidates come to politics from other endeavors, they usually leave management of the media — and thus the campaign — to professionals. In fact, they often pay huge sums to their consultants, and justify the expense by handing over the reins of the campaign. No wonder so many people are turned off to politics. It could all change overnight, if we elected honest leaders.
And that’s SetonnoteS...I’m Tony Seton.