Common Cause - Holding Power ResponsibleCommon Cause - Holding Power Responsible

Topics
Our Issues
Money in Politics
Election Reform
Media and Democracy
Ethics in Government
Government Accountability
Press Center
Research Center
Register to Vote

Sign Up and join the Community - click here

Research

Traditional media fails voters

By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:06:07 AM EST

As voters seek more substantive information about candidates in a wide-open and critically important Presidential race, the major media outlets lapse further into the widely reviled horse-race commentary that has become their hallmark, according to a new study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The campaign coverage has been sharply at odds with what the public says it wants, the study found, with voters eager to know more about the candidates' positions on issues and their personal backgrounds, more about lesser-known candidates and more about the debates.

But the media is even more obsessed this time around with questions of tactics and strategy, despite what the study described as a "generational struggle" in both parties. Horse-race stories accounted for 63 percent of the stories this year compared with what the study said was about 55 percent in 2000 and 2004.

"If American politics is changing," the study concluded, "the style and approach of the American press does not appear to be changing with it."
I could not be less surprised by this study, and at the same time it still strikes me as an incredible disappointment.  The traditional media--especially major television and cable outlets--seem mired in this race-to-the-bottom, lowest-common-denominator coverage that can't help but get hysterical about trivial items and that can't figure out how to delve into any issues of substance.

What about restoring the balance of powers and the rule of law as governed by the Constitution?  What about fixing the broken elements of our election and campaign finance systems?  What about health care and global warming and foreign policy?  And yet 63% of the coverage is devoted to the latest poll from Iowa, or a haircut, or an ill-timed phone call.  As if that is as important as how everyone in the country can be covered for health care?  Please.

It's not hard for me to find issues that I believe are truly important for the next President.  Yet the media, as the study shows and as our common sense has been telling us for years, simply does not provide that information.

Whether they cannot, don't want to, or think it's a ratings loser is immaterial.  It's easy enough to lose faith in our democracy and in our system of politics--the hysteria over the latest poll or the latest "gaffe" strips the race of any real meaning and leaves viewers feeling like a spectator at a ballgame, not a participant in democracy.  It makes a growing problem worse.

The bigger question is how to break this trend.  It will take some maturity and vision from the traditional media outlets--though I'm not sure whether we can count on that--but I'm sure that many voters like me will continue to look elsewhere for their information, and with good reason.


Tags: media and democracy, election 08, presidential race (all tags)


Display:

Traditional media fails voters :: 2 Comments

Why aren't there more news stations?

I don't understand why the mainstream media is pushing so hard for their own agenda.

I also don't understand why those, who are not getting their agendas out to the public, don't just start their own radio and news channels.

Why is there only a two-party system being pushed?

If channels like CBS, NBC, ABC, etc., are allowed to exist and push their agendas on Americans, but no one else can have alternative stations, it makes me wonder who is controling the existing news network, and why don't they want Americans to know about other candidates and other issues?

Isn't that a monopoloy, and/or dictatorship where the media is filtered for the common person, as if we don't have a right to think, act, or speak beyond what the major networks want us to?

Trying not to be shark bait.

by FacingTheSharks on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:44:22 AM EST


To answer your question...

Why don't people just start their own radio and news channels?

Well for radio, it's in part because you can't just start one up. there are no new licenses to be given out. The FCC controls broadcasting licenses. And they aren't giving out any new ones for full power commercial stations any time soon. probably not in our generation.

Secondly, it is ridiculously expensive to start up a radio station or TV channel, and those not getting their agendas out are typically those who don't have a lot of money to begin with! Then of course, they would represent competition to the existing channels, which are often partially owned by the cable networks. Therefore, even if you started a new cable news channel, there is no guarantee that the cable system would put it on.

You are asking the right questions. The media does indeed filter the information we need. And that is why we are fighting to reduce media concentration.

by Jon Bartholomew on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:25:33 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.


contact us | volunteer/intern programs | employment opportunities | site map | privacy policy