|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
Why reporters feel robbed when sparks don't fly
of TheColumnists.com
Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post’s estimable media critic, seemed disappointed.
Wolf Blitzer, the ever-polite CNN anchorman and political debate moderator, clearly was disappointed.
What caused the downcast faces?
Simply the failure of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to get into a red-faced, finger-shaking shouting match during their Jan. 31 debate.
The candidates were civil, stuck mostly to the issues and blasted the opposition Republicans. No hollering, cheap shots, (well, not too many) no shouting, blatant innuendos, or savagery.
“There was a power failure,” Kurtz intoned. “There were just no sparks…The needle didn't move.”
Shocking state of affairs.
What have we come to? Candidates actually being polite and thoughtful; candidates talking about the differences (between Clinton and Obama, they are slight) in their policy positions.
Obama said he had opposed the war in Iraq
from the start, while Clinton had not.
"Senator Clinton, that's a clear swipe at you," Blitzer
said hopefully.She ignored that and went on the blather a bit
about the difference between one wording of a resolution and
another wording. Typical policy-wonk stuff. Too bad, Wolfie.
Debates are supposed to give viewers a chance to judge the temperaments
and intellect of the candidates. So on Jan. 31 Obama and Hillary
demonstrated that when they want to, they can be level-headed,
even-tempered and articulate.
Bah.
The media pretty consistently berate themselves for following
the “horse race” aspects of political campaigning--paying
too much attention to who’s ahead, the polls, and so on--and
not enough attention to what the candidates intend to do if they
are successful in gaining office.
Yet the media excitement over things such as John McCain’s
amazing comeback is hugely excusable. It’s a narrative you
simply cannot ignore. A failure to give it robust coverage would
be journalistic malpractice. John Edwards’ gallant race;
Rudy Giuliani’s last stand in Florida that imploded. And
who was going to win what on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5?
No, the media cannot really be faulted for that kind of coverage.
It’s simply irresistible. Who would want to lessen it?
What the media can be faulted for, however, is their constant
lust to set up a fight. Too many reporters want to see a donnybrook
every time candidates get together for a debate, never mind whether
it helps the voter.
Why? Well, for starters, shouting matches are much easier to
report than are seminars in public policy. They’re simple
and exciting. More than anything else, they get people talking
about what the reporters are covering, and from any reporter’s
standpoint, that’s good.
A loud, unenlightening argument usually doesn’t shed much
light on who would do the best job in office. The most that can
be said for it is that maybe it tests a candidate’s temperament.
But it sure is fun.
Some of the media reaction seemed to blame Obama and Clinton
for failure to chew the scenery, with Kurtz referring almost
sarcastically to the “kumbaya” aspect of the evening.
The restraint by the two Democratic candidates did not stem from
their purity of heart. It was a calculated decision to pull back
from the nastiness demonstrated in recent weeks, specifically
by former President Bill Clinton on behalf of his wife. Her strategists
judged it to be counterproductive. So Hillary made nice at the
debate, and so did Obama.
Such decisions are made to advance a candidacy, even if it does
disappoint reporters. Life is hard.
Political reporters can take heart, however, by looking at the
Republican contest. There seems to be little doubt that John
McCain drips with contempt for Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee,
to the extent that he dislikes anyone, dislikes Romney. Neither
McCain nor Huckabee are known to be shy or diffident when it
comes to expressing themselves.
So even if Obama and Clinton stay reasonably civil and dull,
there seems to be a more than reasonable hope that somewhere,
sometime, someone among the Republicans is going to blow up.
At least there seems to be hope for reporters.
©2008 by Charles M. McFadden. The
McFadden caricature is ©2001 by Jim Hummel. This column
first posted Feb. 4, 2008.
You can comment
on this column online. Please address your message to either
"The Editors" or Chuck McFadden. To send an email,
click here and don't forget to mention Chuck's name: talkback@thecolumnists.com
|
|
|
Archives |
|
|