THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
Bowling 1, Health Care 0
Bowling 1, Health Care 0
April 27, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Bowling 1, Health Care 0
By ELIZABETH EDWARDS
Chapel Hill, N.C.
FOR the last month, news media attention was focused on
Pennsylvania and its Democratic primary. Given the
gargantuan effort, what did we learn?
Well, the rancor of the campaign was covered. The amount
of money spent was covered. But in Pennsylvania, as in the
rest of the country this political season, the information
about the candidates’ priorities, policies and
principles — information that voters will need to
choose the next president — too often did not make
the cut. After having spent more than a year on the
campaign trail with my husband, John Edwards, I’m not
surprised.
Why? Here’s my guess: The vigorous press that was
deemed an essential part of democracy at our country’s
inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the
Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional
articles. I am not suggesting that every journalist for a
mainstream media outlet is neglecting his or her duties to
the public. And I know that serious newspapers and
magazines run analytical articles, and public television
broadcasts longer, more probing segments.
But I am saying that every analysis that is shortened, every
corner that is cut, moves us further away from the truth until
what is left is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call
strobe-light journalism, in which the outlines are accurate
enough but we cannot really see the whole picture.
It is not a new phenomenon. In 1954, the Army-McCarthy
hearings — an important if painful part of our history —
were televised, but by only one network, ABC. NBC and
CBS covered a few minutes, snippets on the evening news,
but continued to broadcast soap operas in order, I suspect,
not to invite complaints from those whose days centered on
the drama of “The Guiding Light.”
The problem today unfortunately is that voters who take
their responsibility to be informed seriously enough to
search out information about the candidates are finding it
harder and harder to do so, particularly if they do not have
access to the Internet.
Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe
Biden’s health care plan? Anything at all? But let me guess,
you know Barack Obama’s bowling score. We are choosing
a president, the next leader of the free world. We are not
buying soap, and we are not choosing a court clerk with
primarily administrative duties.
What’s more, the news media cut candidates like Joe Biden
out of the process even before they got started. Just to be
clear: I’m not talking about my husband. I’m referring to
other worthy Democratic contenders. Few people even had
the chance to find out about Joe Biden’s health care plan
before he was literally forced from the race by the news
blackout that depressed his poll numbers, which in turn
depressed his fund-raising.
And it’s not as if people didn’t want this information. In focus
groups that I attended or followed after debates, Joe Biden
would regularly be the object of praise and interest: “I want
to know more about Senator Biden,” participants would say.
But it was not to be. Indeed, the Biden campaign was
covered more for its missteps than anything else. Chris
Dodd, also a serious candidate with a distinguished record,
received much the same treatment. I suspect that there was
more coverage of the burglary at his campaign office in
Hartford than of any other single event during his run other
than his entering and leaving the campaign.
Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator
Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or
Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?
The decision was probably made by the same people who
decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate.
Articles purporting to be news spent thousands upon
thousands of words contemplating whether he would enter
the race, to the point that before he even entered, he was
running second in the national polls for the Republican
nomination. Second place! And he had not done or said
anything that would allow anyone to conclude he was a
serious candidate. A major weekly news magazine put Mr.
Thompson on its cover, asking — honestly! — whether the
absence of a serious campaign and commitment to raising
money or getting his policies out was itself a strategy.
I’m not the only one who noticed this shallow news
coverage. A report by the Project for Excellence in
Journalism and the Shorenstein Center on the Press,
Politics and Public Policy found that during the early
months of the 2008 presidential campaign, 63 percent of
the campaign stories focused on political strategy while
only 15 percent discussed the candidates’ ideas and
proposals.
Watching the campaign unfold, I saw how the press
gravitated toward a narrative template for the campaign,
searching out characters as if for a novel: on one side, a
self-described 9/11 hero with a colorful personal life, a
former senator who had played a president in the movies, a
genuine war hero with a stunning wife and an intriguing
temperament, and a handsome governor with a beautiful
family and a high school sweetheart as his bride. And on
the other side, a senator who had been first lady, a young
African-American senator with an Ivy League diploma, a
Hispanic governor with a self-deprecating sense of humor
and even a former senator from the South standing loyally
beside his ill wife. Issues that could make a difference in
the lives of Americans didn’t fit into the narrative template
and, therefore, took a back seat to these superficialities.
News is different from other programming on television or
other content in print. It is essential to an informed
electorate. And an informed electorate is essential to
freedom itself. But as long as corporations to which news
gathering is not the primary source of income or expertise
get to decide what information about the candidates “sells,”
we are not functioning as well as we could if we had the
engaged, skeptical press we deserve.
And the future of news is not bright. Indeed, we’ve heard
that CBS may cut its news division, and media
consolidation is leading to one-size-fits-all journalism. The
state of political campaigning is no better: without a press
to push them, candidates whose proposals are not
workable avoid the tough questions. All of this leaves
voters uncertain about what approach makes the most
sense for them. Worse still, it gives us permission to ignore
issues and concentrate on things that don’t matter. (Look,
the press doesn’t even think there is a difference!)
I was lucky enough for a time to have a front-row seat in
this campaign — to see all this, to get my information
firsthand. But most Americans are not so lucky. As we move
the contest to my home state, North Carolina, I want my
neighbors to know as much as they possibly can about
what these men and this woman would do as president.
If voters want a vibrant, vigorous press, apparently we will
have to demand it. Not by screaming out our windows as in
the movie “Network” but by talking calmly, repeatedly,
constantly in the ears of those in whom we have entrusted
this enormous responsibility. Do your job, so we can — as
voters — do ours.
Elizabeth Edwards, a senior fellow at the Center for
American Progress, is the author of “Saving Graces.”
Op-Ed Contributor
Bowling 1, Health Care 0
By ELIZABETH EDWARDS
Chapel Hill, N.C.
FOR the last month, news media attention was focused on
Pennsylvania and its Democratic primary. Given the
gargantuan effort, what did we learn?
Well, the rancor of the campaign was covered. The amount
of money spent was covered. But in Pennsylvania, as in the
rest of the country this political season, the information
about the candidates’ priorities, policies and
principles — information that voters will need to
choose the next president — too often did not make
the cut. After having spent more than a year on the
campaign trail with my husband, John Edwards, I’m not
surprised.
Why? Here’s my guess: The vigorous press that was
deemed an essential part of democracy at our country’s
inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the
Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional
articles. I am not suggesting that every journalist for a
mainstream media outlet is neglecting his or her duties to
the public. And I know that serious newspapers and
magazines run analytical articles, and public television
broadcasts longer, more probing segments.
But I am saying that every analysis that is shortened, every
corner that is cut, moves us further away from the truth until
what is left is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call
strobe-light journalism, in which the outlines are accurate
enough but we cannot really see the whole picture.
It is not a new phenomenon. In 1954, the Army-McCarthy
hearings — an important if painful part of our history —
were televised, but by only one network, ABC. NBC and
CBS covered a few minutes, snippets on the evening news,
but continued to broadcast soap operas in order, I suspect,
not to invite complaints from those whose days centered on
the drama of “The Guiding Light.”
The problem today unfortunately is that voters who take
their responsibility to be informed seriously enough to
search out information about the candidates are finding it
harder and harder to do so, particularly if they do not have
access to the Internet.
Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe
Biden’s health care plan? Anything at all? But let me guess,
you know Barack Obama’s bowling score. We are choosing
a president, the next leader of the free world. We are not
buying soap, and we are not choosing a court clerk with
primarily administrative duties.
What’s more, the news media cut candidates like Joe Biden
out of the process even before they got started. Just to be
clear: I’m not talking about my husband. I’m referring to
other worthy Democratic contenders. Few people even had
the chance to find out about Joe Biden’s health care plan
before he was literally forced from the race by the news
blackout that depressed his poll numbers, which in turn
depressed his fund-raising.
And it’s not as if people didn’t want this information. In focus
groups that I attended or followed after debates, Joe Biden
would regularly be the object of praise and interest: “I want
to know more about Senator Biden,” participants would say.
But it was not to be. Indeed, the Biden campaign was
covered more for its missteps than anything else. Chris
Dodd, also a serious candidate with a distinguished record,
received much the same treatment. I suspect that there was
more coverage of the burglary at his campaign office in
Hartford than of any other single event during his run other
than his entering and leaving the campaign.
Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator
Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or
Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?
The decision was probably made by the same people who
decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate.
Articles purporting to be news spent thousands upon
thousands of words contemplating whether he would enter
the race, to the point that before he even entered, he was
running second in the national polls for the Republican
nomination. Second place! And he had not done or said
anything that would allow anyone to conclude he was a
serious candidate. A major weekly news magazine put Mr.
Thompson on its cover, asking — honestly! — whether the
absence of a serious campaign and commitment to raising
money or getting his policies out was itself a strategy.
I’m not the only one who noticed this shallow news
coverage. A report by the Project for Excellence in
Journalism and the Shorenstein Center on the Press,
Politics and Public Policy found that during the early
months of the 2008 presidential campaign, 63 percent of
the campaign stories focused on political strategy while
only 15 percent discussed the candidates’ ideas and
proposals.
Watching the campaign unfold, I saw how the press
gravitated toward a narrative template for the campaign,
searching out characters as if for a novel: on one side, a
self-described 9/11 hero with a colorful personal life, a
former senator who had played a president in the movies, a
genuine war hero with a stunning wife and an intriguing
temperament, and a handsome governor with a beautiful
family and a high school sweetheart as his bride. And on
the other side, a senator who had been first lady, a young
African-American senator with an Ivy League diploma, a
Hispanic governor with a self-deprecating sense of humor
and even a former senator from the South standing loyally
beside his ill wife. Issues that could make a difference in
the lives of Americans didn’t fit into the narrative template
and, therefore, took a back seat to these superficialities.
News is different from other programming on television or
other content in print. It is essential to an informed
electorate. And an informed electorate is essential to
freedom itself. But as long as corporations to which news
gathering is not the primary source of income or expertise
get to decide what information about the candidates “sells,”
we are not functioning as well as we could if we had the
engaged, skeptical press we deserve.
And the future of news is not bright. Indeed, we’ve heard
that CBS may cut its news division, and media
consolidation is leading to one-size-fits-all journalism. The
state of political campaigning is no better: without a press
to push them, candidates whose proposals are not
workable avoid the tough questions. All of this leaves
voters uncertain about what approach makes the most
sense for them. Worse still, it gives us permission to ignore
issues and concentrate on things that don’t matter. (Look,
the press doesn’t even think there is a difference!)
I was lucky enough for a time to have a front-row seat in
this campaign — to see all this, to get my information
firsthand. But most Americans are not so lucky. As we move
the contest to my home state, North Carolina, I want my
neighbors to know as much as they possibly can about
what these men and this woman would do as president.
If voters want a vibrant, vigorous press, apparently we will
have to demand it. Not by screaming out our windows as in
the movie “Network” but by talking calmly, repeatedly,
constantly in the ears of those in whom we have entrusted
this enormous responsibility. Do your job, so we can — as
voters — do ours.
Elizabeth Edwards, a senior fellow at the Center for
American Progress, is the author of “Saving Graces.”
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |