Enough with the Fighting Metaphors!

The following piece as produced by HuffPost's OffTheBus.

Last night’s Democratic boxing match - er, “debate” - was probably the recipient of the most issue-starved coverage of the season. So many news reports -- from the Politico to the New York Times to National Public Radio -- focused on the “Clinton hits back” theme that people might think these events are staged only for the benefit of a media that delights in watching the candidates perform “strategy” on prime-time television.

In addition to the focus on “mudslinging” (I know Clinton introduced the term, but can we please find another metaphor that doesn’t involve boxing or throwing wet dirt?), the mangled headlines were amazingly unvaried, focusing on one candidate’s perceived strength rather than the performance of the rest of the field: “Clinton’s in Thick of Barbed Democratic Debate,” “Clinton Hits Back in Las Vegas Debate,” “Clinton Accuses Rivals of Mudslinging,” “Diamonds and Pearls for Hillary,” “Hillary Goes on Counter-Offensive,” read a few. CNN was more measured, going with “Democrats spar in heated debate,” and the Washington Post report, titled “Democratic Contenders Step Up Attacks in Debate,” actually mentioned the issues.

But we’re still faced with a vocabulary of “attacks,” “sparring,” “punching bags,” Wolf Blitzer as “ringmaster and referee,” the overused “feisty,” “fighting back,” “verbally pounding each other,” and even this Hellenic-sounding phrase from the Los Angeles Times: “Hillary Rodham Clinton stepped down from her front-runner’s pedestal and hit back at her Democratic rivals Thursday night…” Stunning imagery.

Aside from the pugilistic undertones, the common theme in all of these reports was that Hillary fought back while the other candidates (read: Barack Obama and John Edwards) “stubbed their toes” while trying to kick her. (Richardson was allowed some space for his request to “give peace a chance.”) Hillary is reduced to a child deflecting mud in the sandbox (an image of her own creation), while her rivals are depicted as sore losers try to “pile on” the punches in schoolyard fights.

Are the blogs any better? A quick look at the blogosphere's reaction shows a different approach, in part because of the tradition of live-blogging big events. This way, bloggers can parse the candidates' reactions to each question in real-time, rather than providing post-mortem pronouncements. The blogs are, of course, far more partisan -- or at least openly partisan -- than the mainstream news, so you get a lot of spice mixed in with the reactions. But in general, since there's no need to appeal to a bottom line, the blogs tend to provide a more in-depth analysis than the blow-by-blows reproduced ad nauseum by the MSM.

Also, many bloggers are simply annoyed with Wolf Blitzer and CNN. For example, David Swanson at After Dowing Street wrote, "Allowing CNN to not just air a debate but to ask the questions proved on Thursday night (even more dramatically than in the past) [proved] to be a soul sickening disaster."

Can we do better than this? Zephyr Teachout's admonishment to journalists to "get over the 'horse race'" is required reading; instead of a long critique (like this one) she offers journalists a list of "dos." Do compare policies and histories; do use your own images; do write about more than polls and strategy; etc.

Also, the actual format of the debates serves no one but the television networks and their advertisers. As Dan Gillmor wrote last weekend in the Boston Globe, "political debates are stuck in a world of television sound bites, after-the-fact spin, and almost blatant contempt for voters." Technology can help us restore the debates, Gillmor argued, since it can be leveraged to let ordinary citizens in on the process and to give the candidates a chance to approach their positions and each other with nuance and depth.

The MTV/MySpace Presidential Dialogue series gives the public the chance to ask and selection the questions, follow up on the candidates' responses, and rate the performance of the candidates in real time. And other projects like the Huffington Post/Yahoo mashups and 10Questions have used online video and notion of the "wisdom of the crowds" to give the public more participation in the election (disclaimer: I'm part of the 10Questions team).

Maybe as these and newer projects mature and become more robust, we'll be able to move away from a debate system that limits the candidates' interaction with each other, insults the public, and reduces press coverage to a jumble of bar-fight metaphors.

Cross-posted at techPresident.

Follow Josh Levy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/levjoy

Comments

[leftbehind2000]

After grappling with your post, I gotta say you've pinned the issue - although in all candor, the conclusion lacks a true knockout punch.

[homovivens]

Given all the "pugilisms" in the press coverage before and after the debate, the night really was the perfect moment for the "boxers or briefs" question, don't you think?

But then, tossing a few pearls before swine or diamonds to the rough and tough wasn't bad either.

[mosh]

As I read through these blog responses I see many interesting suggestions as to how we might improve the process - blog blog blog :)

But the process isn't broken - it's working just fine - because it's all about the ratings people - weren't we watching?!

So, no, they're not gonna give up the fighting metaphors or the mud slinging or the heading for those showdowns at Chris' OK coral. No one is gonna stop and fix what isn't broken, baby, no matter what we say.

That said --- may the best man win!!!! Kucinich '08!

[akhinaten]

Obama Statement on Reports of Clinton Campaign Tactics

Below is a statement from Barack Obama:

"During our debate in Las Vegas on Thursday, we heard Senator Clinton rail against the politics of 'throwing mud.'

"At the very same time, in Washington, Robert Novak was publishing a column in which he reported the following: 'Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama...'

"The item did not identify these 'agents,' nor did it reveal the nature of the charge. It was devoid of facts, but heavy on innuendo and insinuation of the sort to which we've become all too accustomed in our politics these past two decades. If the purpose of this shameless item was to daunt or discourage me or supporters of our campaign from challenging and changing the politics of Washington, it will fail. In fact, it will only serve to steel our resolve.

"But in the interest of our party, and her own reputation, Senator Clinton should either make public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none.

"She of all people, having complained so often about 'the politics of personal destruction,' should move quickly to either stand by or renounce these tactics.

"I am prepared to stand up to that kind of politics, whether it's deployed by candidates in our party, in the other party or by any third party.

"The cause of change in this country will not be deterred or sidetracked by the old 'Swift boat' politics. The cause of moving America forward demands that we defeat it."

[Jane22]

Please, I am aware of my spelling errors! Did not spell check as normal! Must watch that! Could severely hurt my reputation as a normally good speller in my family!

[BUSHsurvivor]

Nepotism(Hillary ascends the throne A-GAIN?)

.....

What do mean by that? Does it count that Obama is related to Dick Cheney?

[realitytrumpsbull]

The rest of my post truncated off for some reason, so here's the rest of those brass
tacks:

War profiteering
Mexico(important enough to warrant a debate
all by itself, yes, it's time)
Congress as co-equal branch of government
Add your own at this point, but make sure
any future debates 'keep it real' and aren't
pep rallies. Put the issues 'on the table'.
I guess you could go ahead and include
THIS one, while you're at it:
http://www.impeachbush.org

[realitytrumpsbull]

Well, if you want to elevate the level of the
debate, then let's review the issues:

Catastrophically out-of-control federal
spending on god only knows what, longstanding
reliances on federal aid, both foreign and
domestic etc.
Tolerance of patronage by corporate and foreign
and religious special interests
Lack of public accountability
Constitutionalism vs. corporatism
National security
Border security
Nepotism(Hillary ascends the throne A-GAIN?)
Institutionalized discrimination
Trade policies
National debt(see spending, above)
Energy policy
Healthscare(PLEASE shine a bright flashlight
in that'n)
Education(21st century is upon us)
Varmint(people-based pollution of various kinds)
Oh yes, can't forget, >> THE WAR

[williamg]

I always thought that they should have 10 debates, each one dealing with one specific issue. Have one debate on the economy, another on national security, another on education (there has been like 5 questions on education the entire campaign season). The 10th debate can have a puppet asking about diamonds and pearls.

[iluvsam]

I would like to see each candidate put forth all of their information in detail, and in any manner they chose, in a 1 or 2 hour format accessed through some sort of cable access/OnDemand situation. One can select any candidate's presentation they want through their TV (like they would an OnDemand movie or sporting event) and watch it at their pleasure and as many times as they want. The candidates can go into as much or little detail as they want.

[moetheturk]

Right on Josh. It seemes as though Wolf,and CNN are in the grip of the Clinton machine. CNN does really suck bigtime lately, and most of the msm is no better. These "debates" are really entertainment for the masses, scripted, and devoid of any meaningful discourse. We may as well throw the candidates in an arena, with lions,tigers and bears. Then we can really see some blood. The masses would love it! We are really not that far from the fall of the Roman empire.

[WintonyMay]

Josh Levy:
I share your impressions. Thanks for the post.
WintonyMay.

[MrsHaskell]

Great post! Campaign coverage has been mostly horserace and completely context free for the past 5 presidential cycles. It took the debates a while to catch up, but there they are. The worst part about the process is the quality of the candidates it produces. We've created a demagogue's paradise.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

If I were moderator of the debate, I would allow for more flexibility as far as how long a candidate can speak and how many times he or Hillary can respond if "attacked" (i.e. criticized legitimately by a candidate who could also be criticized legitimately).

Wolf Blitzer is so concerned about interjecting himself into the middle of the debate, all I can hear is his constant interruptions throughout a pretty damn good response by Bill Richardson. Let's give Richardson and the others the benefit of the doubt: they're running for President, not merely blowing hot air.

It's why my candidate, Obama, never does too well in these debates. He has to stand up there forever doing nothing and then Wolf asks him an awful question which he is forced to answer "yes" or "no" (though he has it easier than no-ad-money Kucinich). The format lends itself too much to "too hot in the kitchen" zingers and "mud throwing" charges. Senator Edwards made a perfectly reasonable point: Hillary is a pro-corporate Washington insider taking money from lobbyists. I'm not voting for Edwards, but that wasn't mud.

Now, if I had to say what I just said, for instance, in one sentence, with Wolf barking "but . . . but . . . but" the whole time I was typing, I'd be dead.

[kensp]

In a real debate, the candidates would get to ask each other questions. What pass for debates in American campaigns these days are really just joint press conferences.

In a parliamentary system, politicians conduct real debates with each other on a daily basis while Parliament is in session. For this reason Canadian and British politicians have to be skilled debaters to get anywhere. It is hard to imagine that anyone like George W. Bush would have made it anywhere near the top in that kind of system.