The problem isn't just that the media is ignoring Biden for Palin. Part of the issue is that the media is deliberately choosing to swarm a candidate who no one seems to be able to get close to anyway. Palin's aides surround her, making it difficult for reporters to come in contact with her, while Biden has consistently offered one-on-one discussions with the press. CNN offers this bit of observation:
"Sen. Joe Biden faces a paradox: He offers the most unfiltered contact with the media of any of the big four. But he's the least likely to be covered."
Biden isn't Obama or McCain, and he's certainly no Sarah Palin. The press simply loves a new face, and the public loves seeing an average joe rise to the top. Thus the American people are missing out on a prime opportunity to learn more about Biden because mainstream media has chosen to ignore him. So just how much more press coverage has Sarah Palin had than Biden since her national introduction?
"An index released by the LexisNexis Analytics 2008 election dashboard showed Palin received nine times the media coverage that her counterpart did during the first week of September, which included the Republican National Convention."
Nine times is a monumental difference. Sure, it includes the Republican Convention, but Sarah's popularity in the media hasn't begun to fade yet. This is one reason I despise politics. Popularity often separates candidates unfairly, turning election campaigns into entertainment for the public. The media makes a big deal of personal issues and neglects the more important problems, which is why so many people have such a hard time deciding who to vote for.
Streitfeld, Rachel. "Analysis: Biden goes from hot to not since Palin came along." CNN.com. 12 Sep 2008. CNN. 11am 13 Sep 2008.
Streitfeld, Rachel. "Analysis: Biden goes from hot to not since Palin came along." CNN.com. 12 Sep 2008. CNN. 11am 13 Sep 2008
Posts
4 comments:
So you "despise politics" because it's so depndent upon popularity?? And that's unfair, because...??? If you mean "it' unfair for the media to dictate someone's popularity", then I would agree, but with the ascension of the Internet as a primary infomation exchange medium, "the media" isn't nearly as powerful as it was in years past. "Popularity" is not, per se, a bad thing. Artificially manipulated popularity, however, is.
In my opinion, a candidate's popularity shouldn't be based on their character alone. But in today's world, it seems like voters' opinion depends more on scandals and pop culture than the candidates' policies themselves. The media isn't helping by highlighting articles that talk about these kinds of things more than the actual politics.
I wouldn't be upset if Palin got more coverage than Biden because people were interested in her policies, but as it is now people are more interested in the fact that she's a woman and new to the national stage.
My view is that if Palin isn't willing to talk without a script then the media should ignore her.
I also feel as though part of the problem with the current political climate is too much reality TV, in which people become "experts" by discussing short term tactics, appearance and presentation, rather than substance. Thus, "experts" evaluate speaches and interviews not based on the substance of what people said and what it means for the post they are seeking (i.e., for Americans), but on how they looked, what they wore and whether they exceeded expectations.
How many times was George W Bush declared a winner or at least to have "succeeded" in debates, not because he outperformed his opponent, but simply because he outperformed the public's incredibly low expectations of George Bush.
Once again, the GOP spinmasters are saying that it isn't fair to expect Sarah Palin to really know what she is talking about. They want her to be judged on whether she exceeds low expectations, rather than whether she is ready for the job.
Well, I would say that my assessment of a candidate's "character" is the primary (or at least, the initial) decision criterion for me when I go to the voting booth. This is because "character" is less subject to change at the vagaries of politics, while "policies" can be spun endlessly into positions 180 degress opposed, and then back again. This is why I would have had to hold my nose to vote for Clinton; after watching how she acted as First Lady, giving interviews where she attacked "the conservative right-wing conspiracy" against her husband, I lost respect for her character, and deeply mistrust her ability to make choices based on the good of the country rather than the political exigencies of the moment.
The current election appears to feature 2 candidates whose public perception of their respective "characters" is approximately equal, which is why this campaign is generating the kind of interest we're seeing. It's also why the "smear" tactics are necessary (though tiresome); they povide the counter-balance to a candidate's unrelenting self-promotion.
The media's role (ideally) in this dance is to provide objectivity and a source for fact checking of claims and counter-claims, so we (the Publc) have a chance to develop a reliable assessment of the attributes of "character" for the two candidates before us as we make our voting choices.
Post a Comment