It's Not the Candidates Who Are in a Pitched Battle, It's the Media

There's a fundamental ingredient in journalism that all reporters look for -- where's the friction? Who's up? Who's down? Who's in, who's out? Without the friction, the story won't get ratings and it won't get on the front page, above the fold. Why friction? Because friction is what makes the world go 'round since the beginning of recorded history. Our earliest literature was Beowulf, an epic poem of friction between hero and monster. The Greek God myths have sons killing fathers. There's nation against nation, Communism vs. Capitalism, religion-science, North-South, Catholic-Protestant, Sunni-Shia, Red states-Blue states.

So, it should be no surprise when the friction of an event is, uh, less than thrilling, like the recent Democratic debate in Philadelphia. It's often the media who deliver what could politely be described as enhanced friction. Cable TV tagged it as "a brawl." The New York Times labeled it a "pitched debate... withering attack." Well, not quite. Withering attack is 2000 VP candidate Dick Cheney to rival John Edwards about his "undistinguished career." Brawl-like is Rudy Giuliani's "Biden has never run anything but his mouth." Through any reasonable lens, the Democratic debate was hardly brawling or withering, more like firm but deferential. And what was NBC's Tim Russert doing with his Spanish Inquisition impression, fiercely probing the burning issue of... UFOs? His face was practically flushed with the excitement of a major "Gotcha." Can you imagine a fantasy time-warp scene where Lincoln and Douglas face-off against the heat-seeking TV folks? "Congressman Lincoln, Senator Douglas has called you, 'An ambulance chasing shyster who hasn't run anything expect a red light.' In 30 seconds, please."

Just what do these debates really show us -- thoughtful answers to very complex problems? No. Thirty seconds to explain a major healthcare initiative? No. Who's got the best sound bite? Yes. But don't we tend to watch the debates for the same reason we used to like watching the Academy Awards -- for their unpredictability? Somebody says something outrageous, someone streaks across the stage. These debates could provide something the Lincoln-Douglas debates could never do -- a glimpse into the candidates personalities, how they handle the unforeseen. Remember Rick Lazio unexpectedly stalking up to Hillary Clinton's podium in their Senate debate? Or George H.W. Bush looking at his watch in a Bill Clinton debate? Those moments helped the viewer. It showed something about each of those people. But these presidential candidates are so scripted, so memorized, it's hard to get a spontaneous moment, a look into who they really are. Instead of these podium talkfests, how about creating a Reality TV show called "Race for the Prize," an election-season series that pits candidates against each other and puts them in torturous situations like stuck on a Mississippi raft all night with Iran's Ahmadinejad, Israel's Olmert, Russia's Putin and Mike Gravel. Since it's Reality TV, the plot, the lines, and scenes can be pre-scripted, re-shot and highly edited. Even so, isn't there still a better chance to see how these potential leaders handle themselves outside the bubbles of their campaigns? Isn't that what we're basically looking for in a president? It certainly would be much more fun to watch.

Comments

[realitytrumpsbull]

How about not paying 60 bucks a month to watch
people tell you sunshine stories so you'll
sign up for another credit card and buy more
crap you don't really need? Hmmm...

[northridge]

"Pitched debate," "withering debate?" How about "tired" cliches? My old journalism profs would roll over in their graves to read ir hear such hollow reporting, and hyperbole at that. Tom's commentaries on the media are some of the freshest and most insightful criticism I've seen anywhere and in any medium. Keep it up. God knows we've seen better days in the world of journalism.

[ljsfolly]

The media cannot have us miss one minute of the 24 hours a day listening/viewing/reading and it seems that we have either the same "big" story over and over again until the last bit of blood runs out or we get the latest on the celeberty cycle of garbage until it turns into the next "huge" story. I have seen breaking news across the bottom of every screen when anything happens until it is wrung out and re manufactored into noting and anyone who is a expert has said their piece about it. Makes me feel at times like I am watching the "Daily Report" with Jon and he has the pretend experts go on and on about not much. Kind of like the old "Never Mind" from Gilda when she just totally missed the point of the story I feel I have too much information and never mind.

[BernieO]

Great post! Bill Clinton made the same point yesterday about the 60 second sound bites but he is getting hammered today.
One complaint, though. Do you really think that Lazio invading Hillary's space wasn't scripted? Granted it backfired, but I would bet money that the Carl Roves of his campaign told him to do it to rattle her. Considering she had withstood Ken Starr and his ilk it was a dumb move, but hardly spontaneous.

[nunzia]

I entirely agree. I watch the debate, and if it's not on cspan, I just turn off the tv immediately at the end. I never need the "analysis" of empty-headed, empty suits telling me who won, who slipped up, who whatever. Such garbage. I wish everyone would just turn off that crap.