When Richard Nixon campaigned against George McGovern in the run for the presidency in 1972, my 10-year-old friends and I held an informed debate on where each of the men stood on the issues of the day: taxes, prices, and jobs. We were not particularly advanced nor politically inclined. Everyone was debating the issues. So clear were the planks of the candidates’ respective platforms, unless you were hiding in a closet it would've been difficult for any citizen of the U.S. not to know exactly what these presidential candidates stood for. Citizens and the press demanded it.
Today, however, I'm an adult who reads several newspapers a day and listens to NPR. But I couldn't debate the platforms of our current presidential candidates on a bet.
The sorry facts the media is providing in lieu of useful information has made it nearly impossible to identify what either candidate stands for. Instead the members of the press corps have concentrated on serving up the candidates’ strategies, political trends, poll results, gossip, incendiary comments, and fashion news, day after day after tiresome day. On June 30, The New York Times online reported on its front page the news that "Obama thinks Democrats can rise in the South" and "McCain gets praise not backing from Grahams." For months it seemed we were barraged with interviews with super delegates - all information about how someone else is planning to vote but nothing to help readers decide who best represents our priorities.
It may be that the press on the campaign trail today is not sufficiently independent, that they are too close to the candidate's inner circle or, if not, want to appear so, obsessing on poll numbers, projections, and campaign strategies. At stops along a candidate's tour they are herded like sheep into rooms and may never actually see the candidate speak or have contact with the audience except via monitors provided by the candidate. Meanwhile, during the speech, the candidate's handlers are churning out press releases with key phrases they want the journalists to use when they file their stories that day. And -- lo and behold -- they do. Newspaper after newspaper carries the same catch phrases, just under different bylines.
Where are those heroic journalists of our past who were willing to research and dig things up on their own, who pressed candidates for answers on key issues, or talked to local people about what their concerns? In the end it's the journalists' responsibility to push for the kind of decisive information we as citizens need to know in order to determine the future of our democracy.
Perhaps the candidates are too well shielded for reporters to approach them with tough questions. If that's the case, the media should broadcast nothing on them at all. My guess is that as soon as the free advertising dries up, the candidates will be keen to be more candid with reporters about their stance on key issues.
Do we really care whether Barack is “targeting swing states?” Will it answer any of our most important political questions if we know McCain is considering so-and-so as a running mate in order to “woo the religious vote”?
Instead, we want to know has the candidate addressed, say, workers? Where exactly does he stand on the issues that concern them? How does that compare with what he said last week on the same topic in Des Moines? How about his voting record on this issue in the House? Or in other public offices he has held? What bills has he sponsored on this front? And does he have any ties with any entity that might impact his future decisions on this?
The answers to those kinds of questions are political reportage at its best, but it's hard to come by today. Poynter Online has an excellent story designed to point political writers in the right direction, titled "Places Journalists Should Go for Politics." In it, author Al Tompkins details where to find out all sorts of juicy tidbits, such as how a candidate has voted on key legislation and what bills he or she has sponsored or passed. Imagine --a political news story on a topic that is actually salient to our democracy.
The citizens of the U.S. were granted a free press at the very birth of our country to assure that we would be privy to just such information, and with good reason: We cannot make informed choices about our democracy without good, solid, meaningful information on our potential leaders.
I doubt the Founding Fathers had it in mind that we would vote based on who's leading in the polls. To do so is to do a disservice to the political process.
As McGovern himself was noted for saying, "Don't throw away your conscience."
Today, however, I'm an adult who reads several newspapers a day and listens to NPR. But I couldn't debate the platforms of our current presidential candidates on a bet.
The sorry facts the media is providing in lieu of useful information has made it nearly impossible to identify what either candidate stands for. Instead the members of the press corps have concentrated on serving up the candidates’ strategies, political trends, poll results, gossip, incendiary comments, and fashion news, day after day after tiresome day. On June 30, The New York Times online reported on its front page the news that "Obama thinks Democrats can rise in the South" and "McCain gets praise not backing from Grahams." For months it seemed we were barraged with interviews with super delegates - all information about how someone else is planning to vote but nothing to help readers decide who best represents our priorities.
It may be that the press on the campaign trail today is not sufficiently independent, that they are too close to the candidate's inner circle or, if not, want to appear so, obsessing on poll numbers, projections, and campaign strategies. At stops along a candidate's tour they are herded like sheep into rooms and may never actually see the candidate speak or have contact with the audience except via monitors provided by the candidate. Meanwhile, during the speech, the candidate's handlers are churning out press releases with key phrases they want the journalists to use when they file their stories that day. And -- lo and behold -- they do. Newspaper after newspaper carries the same catch phrases, just under different bylines.
Where are those heroic journalists of our past who were willing to research and dig things up on their own, who pressed candidates for answers on key issues, or talked to local people about what their concerns? In the end it's the journalists' responsibility to push for the kind of decisive information we as citizens need to know in order to determine the future of our democracy.
Perhaps the candidates are too well shielded for reporters to approach them with tough questions. If that's the case, the media should broadcast nothing on them at all. My guess is that as soon as the free advertising dries up, the candidates will be keen to be more candid with reporters about their stance on key issues.
Do we really care whether Barack is “targeting swing states?” Will it answer any of our most important political questions if we know McCain is considering so-and-so as a running mate in order to “woo the religious vote”?
Instead, we want to know has the candidate addressed, say, workers? Where exactly does he stand on the issues that concern them? How does that compare with what he said last week on the same topic in Des Moines? How about his voting record on this issue in the House? Or in other public offices he has held? What bills has he sponsored on this front? And does he have any ties with any entity that might impact his future decisions on this?
The answers to those kinds of questions are political reportage at its best, but it's hard to come by today. Poynter Online has an excellent story designed to point political writers in the right direction, titled "Places Journalists Should Go for Politics." In it, author Al Tompkins details where to find out all sorts of juicy tidbits, such as how a candidate has voted on key legislation and what bills he or she has sponsored or passed. Imagine --a political news story on a topic that is actually salient to our democracy.
The citizens of the U.S. were granted a free press at the very birth of our country to assure that we would be privy to just such information, and with good reason: We cannot make informed choices about our democracy without good, solid, meaningful information on our potential leaders.
I doubt the Founding Fathers had it in mind that we would vote based on who's leading in the polls. To do so is to do a disservice to the political process.
As McGovern himself was noted for saying, "Don't throw away your conscience."
No comments:
Post a Comment