One trend in political coverage, particularly noticeable in the coverage of Saddleback, is hearing statements that say “x is more accurate but y is more effective” or as Andrew Sullivan summarizes the two candidate’s responses on abortion:
I think Obama’s position was completely defensible and more thoughtful than McCain’s. But less effective.
It seems we are being sacrificed at the alter of political efficacy by the media. It is a world where being respectful, accurate, thoughtful, intelligent, etc is worse than being effective. Worse yet, the media, in evaluating everything by their standard of perceived effectiveness, they forget that they have a reasonable hand in what IS effective.
If the media provided detailed fact checking of claims and basically flooded the airwaves with “this candidate is wrong,” being accurate would be effective. If talking heads used intelligent as a positive word rather than an insult in framing analysis, intelligence would be effective.
A large part of political outcomes are unaffected by the media or the candidate. Some of the outcome does boil down to effectiveness considerations that are separate from media framing. Yet, another segment of the outcome relies on these media narratives. As a result, the media has a responsibility to the public good to use narratives that boost considerations that help us rather than hurt us. As Jon Stewart once said of Crossfire, “you’re hurting us, please stop.”
Watching this I can’t help but to think that especially with the revived talk of the youth vote, that Jon Stewart would have done a fantastic job as a debate moderator if given the opportunity. One might claim he is more biased than the journalists given the job. This may be true but Stewart is certainly no more biased as Rick Warren at Saddleback, so it could have been a secondary forum. This article does a good job showing why it would be hard for Stewart to do worse at the debates.
- VWI
