Mainstream has the time, money and resources to make itself better. In most instances, it chooses to waste time, make more money and cut resources. By latching onto the poll leaders, mainstream media has all but endorsed a handful of candidates, regardless of their qualifications.
Too bad the Iraq War will not force lasting change for how the mainstream media reports the news. Long considered a lapdog to the current administration, the mainstream will demonstrate the same "same-ness" during the upcoming Presidential election.
Mainstream is alot like President George Bush. It views the world of news in black and white, rarely with the shade of gray that the world deserves. Mainstream has the time, money and resources to make itself better. In most instances, it chooses to waste time, make more money and cut resources.
So as Democrats and Republicans will elbow one another to the 2008 election, the media will continue to showcase the election like it's the Kentucky Derby. You hear it by the words the media uses like "presidential sweepstakes" and "horse race." You see it by images the media uses. Images of the so-called "frontrunners," the candidates who amass the most money and lead the public opinion polls. Who, other than the "front runners", benefit by such coverage? Not the challengers, not new ideas, not the public.
By latching onto the poll leaders, mainstream media has all but endorsed a handful of candidates, regardless of their qualifications. You could argue that the public elevated the "front runners" to their place when they talk to pollsters or donate money. That can't be ignored. But the role of the media is not to perpetuate a "horse race" and sell it as Presidential leadership. The role of the media is to dig deeper and help the public make an informed decision. Who is the best leader for our times, who has the best vision for the future, and what makes them tick.
A poll is just a snapshot in time and by the time they'e released, they are usually days old. Report it, sure, but then let it go. But today, everyone is doing a poll, and everyday, everyone reports the results. The few hundred people who answer the phone at dinner time and talk to pollsters are the few hundred people determining that Clinton, Obama, McCain and Guiliani gets the most news coverage. It's time for the media to take back control.
Then there's the money trail. Of course it takes cash to run and it takes a lot of cash to run hard and long. But why should cash determine how the media covers a candidate. Let the campaigns money buy ad time to better promote their candidate. The media shouldn't add free news coverage just because Clinton, Obama and Romney have a war chest.
And finally there's product placement. Almost all the time, Clinton, Obama, and McCain lead the news coverage, often with soundbites from the campaign trail. But when it comes to candidates not polling as well, they either dodn't get mentioned, or get paraphrased by an anchor. There's no better example than coverage of a debate. The "front runners" are heard, those lagging behind in polls and fundraising get mentioned.
The bottom line is front runner status gives candidates a free pass. The media spends less time examining positions on key issues, past and present. Without such scrutiny, how is the public supposed to decipher whether a candidate can handle the future?
There are two major reasons for this infatuation between the media and front runners: experience and money. First, newsrooms are losing more and more thought-provokers. Veteran journalists are fed up with the business or the business is fed up with their salaries and head count. That leaves us reporters with less perspective to examine the harder questions of a campaign. Second, by embracing the frontrunner model, covering politics is like covering car accidents. They take little thought and are much cheaper to do.
If the mainstream considered or even cared to elevate its credibility with the public, it would elevate its own product. But the cost of quality in news conflicts with profits for news. Corporations behind the mastheads and TV screens care more about convincing the FCC to relax rules so it could own more outlets and make more money. As entertainment and sales divisions have more control over news divisions, a mainstream news renaissance will never occur. Instead we'll continue to rely on the outspoken, frank and important discussions taking place on the web, leaving mainstream's political coverage resembling American Idol, the Publishers Clearinghouse Sweepstakes and the Kentucky Derby.