To some observers, the current U.S. news coverage of the presidential campaign is becoming nasty and shallow, with recent furors over trivia misstatements rather than issues.
Only dire economic troubles have managed to divert the media’s attention away from the pettier aspects of the campaign in recent days. It’s tempting to join the many voices lambasting journalists for “dumbing down” an exceedingly crucial election, but perhaps the finger of blame can be pointed at the connection between public demand for “info-tainment” and the fierce competition for advertising revenue that is needed to keep the news industry afloat.
It’s not news that traditional media stalwarts like The New York Times and The Washington Post, which regularly offer in-depth coverage of the issues, have entered days of financial insecurity. And a quick check of their Web sites shows which stories the public is reading and e-mailing to friends. In the wake of Sarah Palin’s nomination for vice president, for example, her views on the Georgia-Russia conflict aroused considerably less public interest than her daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
So, when you ask yourself why there are so few stories on the candidates’ positions on U.S. aid to Africa, but so many discussing whether or not McCain invented the Blackberry or debating Obama’s “celebrity” status, you need to follow the money. Or, thinking like an advertiser, follow the ratings.
As Digital Deliverance’s Vin Crosbie puts it: “The more consumers the vehicle attracts, the higher the rates the advertiser are willing to pay and the more money the vehicle earns.”
In the über-competitive world of news, the fight for advertising revenue means attracting the largest audience, which leads to “dumbing down” content to “attract a larger audience by appealing to a lower common denominator,” as Crosbie says. And that raises some questions about the role of the press in creating an informed electorate.
So, that’s what’s up with U.S. election coverage. Suggestions for improvement are welcome.
Comments (2)
lisap
27 November 2008 at 08:02 EST
Permalink
We can voice out our opinions. We can choose who we want to be in that position. However, we should not be biased. Equal treatment is part of the professionalism. One of the most essential things for a modern nation to have is a rock solid program of education. It seems as though education took a bit of a dive on the priority list for both of the presidential candidates, but don’t worry – it’s still there, and it is still a priority for the President Elect. Obama intends to take a good hard look at No Child Left Behind, according to this article. He isn’t in favor of ending the program, but he wants some changes made, such as not teaching our children to “fill in bubbles.” Both he and his Vice President Elect, Joe Biden, are both in favor of charter schools, as long as they can perform up to standards. Teachers at charter schools and otherwise will find plenty of incentives to perform well, such as Teacher Service Scholarships and pay incentives, which are things that teachers dearly need. Also, boosting Early Head Start programs and creating tax credit, or as Obama calls them, the “American Opportunity” credit, for college education are all parts of his education plan. Repairing the American people’s faith in its education system is vital, and so is credit repair for the qualification of new entrants into the American workforce – something which is dearly needed.Click to learn more about Credit Repair.
SEO Services
4 February 2009 at 05:00 EST
Permalink
I couldn’t agree with you more. I was shocked to see the number of celebu-tards who were involved in this election and celebu-tard type TV magazines who got involved in the who Sarah Palin coverage. It became nothing more than a cheap way to gain advertisers’ dollars and increase their market share on TV and on the Internet.