October 24, 2012 -- Updated 1937 GMT (0337 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Howard Kurtz: We've seen media seize on a parade of trivial statements in campaign
- He cites "binders full of women," "horses and bayonets" and Big Bird
- Kurtz says coverage of the substance of the campaign gets overshadowed by minor things
- He says media chasing an audience discard serious issues and focus on crowd-pleasing themes
Editor's note: Howard
Kurtz is the host of CNN's Reliable Sources and Newsweek's Washington
bureau chief. He is also a contributor to the website Daily Download.
(CNN) -- The media have been giving us binders full of blather.
In a campaign that is
supposedly, allegedly and ostensibly about big and serious issues, we
have been wallowing in what amounts to sideshow stuff.
It's not just the focus
on Mitt Romney saying at last week's presidential debate that in looking
for appointees in Massachusetts he received "binders full of women," an
admittedly funny phrase that exploded on cable news. The trending
Twitter topic after this week's face off was President Obama's line
about Romney hearkening back to a military backed by "horses and
bayonets." Journalists after the first debate flocked to that towering
issue known as Big Bird.
Are the media trivializing the campaign?
We have, through the
course of this endless campaign season, bounced from one ephemeral
controversy to the next, from the dog on the roof to "oops!" from Etch A
Sketch to Joe Biden's laughter.
Journalists have pounced on botched phrases deemed to be gaffes:
"I like being able to
fire people;" "You didn't build that;" "Ann Romney never worked a day in
her life;" "I'm not concerned about the very poor."
Sometimes there are
legitimate questions embedded in the choice of language, as with
Romney's apparent dismissal of 47% of America, but more often it's just a
chance to turn the candidate into a piñata.
'Binders full of women' overshadows Presidential debate
Campaigns have always
had their lighter side, of course, but this year we seem to be getting
more empty calories than ever. That is not to slight the dogged
reporters who have in fact delved into the issues and done the arduous
work of fact-checking the candidates' ads and utterances. But let's face
it: How often has their work been on the front pages or at the top of
the newscasts?
Sure, in an age of
on-demand information, you can gorge yourself on the candidates'
conflicting arguments on the auto bailout or trade with China. But the
media create narratives by cranking up the volume, and you have to
strain to hear the issues dissected in a way you didn't when Donald
Trump was throwing around his birtherism nonsense. Yes, the substantive
pieces have run on inside newspaper pages, occasionally on home pages,
and popped up on television, which has a harder time coping with
complexity. So much easier for all of us to trumpet the latest poll.
More dual-screen users Tweeting during debates
In their debates, the
candidates have clashed on tax cuts, health care, immigration, Libya and
other vital questions. You might wonder: Is Romney suddenly moderating
positions he has taken for the last two years? Why, on Monday night in
Boca Raton, did he keep agreeing with Obama's foreign policy? Does the
president have a real second-term agenda? Yet the post-game chatter has
zeroed in on zingers, body language, interruptions and attacks on the
moderators themselves.
The foreign policy
debate was sober and high-minded; does anyone actually believe the media
will be exploring the exchanges on Afghanistan and Syria for more than
24 hours?
Some of this sustained
superficiality has to do with today's relentless news cycle and
shrinking attention spans. "You can't talk in 140 characters on Twitter
about the complexities of the budget or taxes," veteran journalist Steve
Roberts told me on Reliable Sources. Maybe so, but does that mean we
just punt?
Analyst: Candidates played up strengths
How should candidates view Arab Spring?
Watch final debate between Obama, Romney
Obama, Jon Stewart and 2012's comedy factor
The burden falls on the
candidates as well. If they speak in vague sound bites and duck hard
choices, it's more difficult (but hardly impossible) for news
organizations to put substantive questions front and center.
What's more, they are
increasingly ignoring the media's attempts to call them on exaggerations
and falsehoods. "We're not going (to) let our campaign be dictated by
fact-checkers," Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said at the GOP
convention. Once upon a time, campaigns felt compelled to make
adjustments when their distortions were spotlighted. These days they
just double the ad buy.
Have you noticed how
many times the media have declared that we are about to plunge into a
dead-serious debate? First the campaign was going to be about the
economy. When the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, we were assured that
health care would be a dominant issue.
When Romney picked Paul
Ryan, the pundits agreed that this would be a big election about
Medicare and budget-cutting. Instead we wound up with endless stories
about Ryan's P90X workout.
Hey, I get it.
Everyone's chasing clicks and eyeballs. Delving into the intricacies of
how Obama and Romney would fix Medicare can be eye-glazing, while
writing about Michelle and Ann on "The View" is fun.
But as the clock runs
out on the 2012 race, I'm left with this nagging feeling: Don't we
deserve a better campaign? And aren't the media partially responsible?
Posts
