Elizabeth Edwards on the media

winthrop · 04-28-2008, 08:13 AM

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.

HarperLee · 04-28-2008, 08:19 AM

Erica Jong, today:

Our press has become a sea of triviality, meanness and irrelevant chatter.

CosmicRocker · 04-28-2008, 08:35 AM

excellent aticle, but what to do about it?

The media have always done this.
One thing they look at, before the votes is the fundraising.

Those that pull in the bucks are the " serious" candidates.

A way to eliminate this idiocy is to have Federal Funding.
Something to equalize the $$, so the ideas , and not the money becomes the focus

winthrop · 04-28-2008, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

excellent aticle, but what to do about it?

The media have always done this.
One thing they look at, before the votes is the fundraising.

Those that pull in the bucks are the " serious" candidates.

A way to eliminate this idiocy is to have Federal Funding.
Something to equalize the $$, so the ideas , and not the money becomes the focus

Have they always done it? Although there has always been a branch of "light" news features, I can recall the late 'sixties through the seventies a news media that took itself and its job very seriously. Murrow, Huntley-Brinkley and early Cronkite worked before I was old enough to pay attention, but I find it hard to picture any of them engaging in the kind of crap infesting the supposed serious media we see now. As news departments were moved into entertainment and expected to turn a profit instead of providing a public service, the tide changed and the worst of human nature was exploited for ratings.
Federal funding of campaigns would alleviate interest in the money horse race, but titillation would still be an irresistible force, would it not?

itsmeeeeeee · 04-28-2008, 09:18 AM

yes, the fairness doctrine was first abolished by reagan, and then tamped back down by bull clinton, obviously for his OWN nefarious survival.

i'm totally pissed.

one of these days, someone should organize a war against our media.
the media's soul has already left the building.

they are controlled by corporations who want the people weak and uninformed. only an all out war against the media and corporate corruption would change this. unfortunately, there's more outrage about bullshit distorted snippets of good minister's than there is about this. and we can only blame ourselves for that.

CosmicRocker · 04-28-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winthrop

Have they always done it? Although there has always been a branch of "light" news features, I can recall the late 'sixties through the seventies a news media that took itself and its job very seriously. Murrow, Huntley-Brinkley and early Cronkite worked before I was old enough to pay attention, but I find it hard to picture any of them engaging in the kind of crap infesting the supposed serious media we see now. As news departments were moved into entertainment and expected to turn a profit instead of providing a public service, the tide changed and the worst of human nature was exploited for ratings.
Federal funding of campaigns would alleviate interest in the money horse race, but titillation would still be an irresistible force, would it not?

during the times when there was only Network news, there wasn't really any media coverage of the horse race, except polling data, and fundraising, I agree.

"Always" was meant to refer to post cable news.
Sorry I should have clarified...

Federal Funding would not eliminate the " horserace" coverage, but fundraising is such an overwhelming metric of viability,
the shows would have to find some other way of coverage.
Maybe crowds. Maybe yet more polls.

Still it would slow down the " elimination process" that Eliz. edwards refers to.

winthrop · 04-28-2008, 09:39 AM

You are right, it would affect that, and then maybe candidates such as Mr. Biden could stay around to make an impact, or perhaps even, who knows, actually win.
As for the cable news circus, filling twenty four hours is obviously too much of a challenge for them; particularly when tabloid material brings in the cash. And that, as noted elsewhere, is our fault.

Veronica · 04-28-2008, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsmeeeeeee

yes, the fairness doctrine was first abolished by reagan, and then tamped back down by bull clinton, obviously for his OWN nefarious survival.

i'm totally pissed.

one of these days, someone should organize a war against our media.
the media's soul has already left the building.

they are controlled by corporations who want the people weak and uninformed. only an all out war against the media and corporate corruption would change this. unfortunately, there's more outrage about bullshit distorted snippets of good minister's than there is about this. and we can only blame ourselves for that.

Big corp. media wants to the lead the sheep. They are telling us what to think and what to regurgitate. They were upset when the public didn't bury Obama with Rev. Wright. They were outright indignant that the loop of his controversial statements didn't cause bigger issues for Obama. This disrupted their ability to corral the sheep.

It is all for ratings. They switch teams as fast as it suits them. Biden and Edwards were derailed because somebody didn't like or want them in the contest. Who is that person behind the curtain pulling the strings on the puppets?

julia · 04-28-2008, 10:27 AM

Thanks, Winthrop.
Had posted this in the Edwards thread but Elizabeth deserves her own thread.

Mithrall · 04-28-2008, 03:47 PM

I think the media needs to undergo reform akin to lobbyist reform. We can't afford to have the media getting thier "news" directly from the White House like it did pre-Iraq. We need to start asking what Fox's bias is, but also what NBC, ABC CBS CNN etc. We need to start demanding that they not insult our intelligence with 5 second clips out of context that not only don't tell the story, they distort it beyond all recognition.

04-28-2008, 08:13 AM	#1 (permalink)
winthrop Mediator for the Messes Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,374 Thanks: 35 Thanked 104 Times in 79 Posts	Elizabeth Edwards on the media 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. __________________ Countdown to The Great Bush-Out... Meanwhile, panem et circenses!
	Top

04-28-2008, 08:19 AM	#2 (permalink)
HarperLee Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 4,256 Thanks: 1,355 Thanked 468 Times in 294 Posts	Erica Jong, today: Our press has become a sea of triviality, meanness and irrelevant chatter. __________________ Oliver Stone on George W. Bush: "the banality of evil"
	Top

04-28-2008, 08:35 AM	#3 (permalink)
CosmicRocker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: lost in a lost world Posts: 7,980 My Mood: Thanks: 142 Thanked 105 Times in 84 Posts	excellent aticle, but what to do about it? The media have always done this. One thing they look at, before the votes is the fundraising. Those that pull in the bucks are the " serious" candidates. A way to eliminate this idiocy is to have Federal Funding. Something to equalize the $$, so the ideas , and not the money becomes the focus __________________ Traveling Wilburys (l to r) Bob Dylan, Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty, George Harrison, Roy Orbison ``````````````````````````````````````` sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon going to the candidates debate Laugh about it, shout about it when you got to choose every way you look at it you lose Mrs. Robinson - Simon and Garfunkle
	Top

04-28-2008, 09:18 AM	#5 (permalink)
itsmeeeeeee punk nun Mahjong Connect Champion! Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: 53 miles west of venus Posts: 4,028 My Mood: Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 228 Thanked 773 Times in 466 Posts	yes, the fairness doctrine was first abolished by reagan, and then tamped back down by bull clinton, obviously for his OWN nefarious survival. i'm totally pissed. one of these days, someone should organize a war against our media. the media's soul has already left the building. they are controlled by corporations who want the people weak and uninformed. only an all out war against the media and corporate corruption would change this. unfortunately, there's more outrage about bullshit distorted snippets of good minister's than there is about this. and we can only blame ourselves for that. __________________ "NEVER underestimate the Democrat's ability to snatch DEFEAT from the jaws of victory."
	Top

04-28-2008, 09:39 AM	#7 (permalink)
winthrop Mediator for the Messes Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,374 Thanks: 35 Thanked 104 Times in 79 Posts	You are right, it would affect that, and then maybe candidates such as Mr. Biden could stay around to make an impact, or perhaps even, who knows, actually win. As for the cable news circus, filling twenty four hours is obviously too much of a challenge for them; particularly when tabloid material brings in the cash. And that, as noted elsewhere, is our fault. __________________ Countdown to The Great Bush-Out... Meanwhile, panem et circenses!
	Top

04-28-2008, 10:27 AM	#9 (permalink)
julia Sassy Lipstick Maverick Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 3,769 Blog Entries: 7 Thanks: 264 Thanked 269 Times in 162 Posts	Thanks, Winthrop. Had posted this in the Edwards thread but Elizabeth deserves her own thread. __________________ The candidate does not speak for the campaign.
	Top

04-28-2008, 03:47 PM	#10 (permalink)
Mithrall Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 687 Thanks: 77 Thanked 108 Times in 63 Posts	I think the media needs to undergo reform akin to lobbyist reform. We can't afford to have the media getting thier "news" directly from the White House like it did pre-Iraq. We need to start asking what Fox's bias is, but also what NBC, ABC CBS CNN etc. We need to start demanding that they not insult our intelligence with 5 second clips out of context that not only don't tell the story, they distort it beyond all recognition.
	Top

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode