http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/29/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html
CNN reports that Gringrich claims that Romney is not as honest as he appears. The question this brings to my mind is who cares, what does this have to do with the elections and their policies. The media strikes again in exposing meaningless social issues between candidates. Who cares what Newt Gringrich thinks about Mitt Romney, they are running against each other its not surprising that they dont have the best things to say about each other. CNN added credability to the story by interviewing Ron Paul and Herman Cain. First of all Ron Paul isnt even involved in the dispute, and Herman Cain dosent even matter in the race any more.
Once again the media adds emphasis to something that dosent need to be noticed by the generel public. The network media is just trying to add intensity and drama in order to increase ratings and readership. This isnt a soap opera lets keep the drama out of it, the media is playing the part of the annoying neighbor who spreads the word around town when the married couple next door have an arguement. Lets get it together CNN and start reporting the actual news leave the drama to Entertainment tonight.
Gabriel,
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what I found in viewing coverage of the last GOP debate: the media's focus on events is not the problem-- it's their focus on events that lack basic political consequence.
Succinct and well-put.
I disagree, the point to campaign season is to cause yourself to stand out from one another. Whether I agree with the tactic or not, that is what it is intended to do (cue campaign ads, town hall meetings, and debates). Identifying why you are the strongest candidate and why another candidate is insufficient in comparison goes all the way back to campaigning for 8th grade class president. I believe that the Media does play a role in televising and distinguishing the differences. I believe the real key in controversy is the severity that it is covered, the legitimacy given to the coverage, and the overall nature of what is being covered.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very good point, but I think what I was trying to say was that this little story didnt need the coverage that this was given and the whole way they covered it was not affective, You made great points
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBut we've been talking about this tactic and this "point to the campaign season" as issues in American media. The idea that this is intended is a major concern to scholars, political scientists, and traditional journalists alike. This is in no way in which a candidate should demonstrate his strength, nor his competitors' insufficiencies. Mudslinging and name-calling is not strength, nor are marriage scandals or other "meaningless social issues" true weakness. If there is no political consequence to a "weakness," I should expect that the mainstream media would leave that slop to the tabloids.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I agree that this is common in 8th grade class presidential elections. I also firmly believe that, by the time a man or woman is experienced and old enough to run for president, (s)he would have put aside such elementary tactics and learned to uphold the practices of honest and honorable campaigning.
If the candidates do not partake in these so-called strategies, there will be no event. In events-based journalism, if there is no event, there can be no coverage and therefore the severity, legitimacy and overall nature is inconsequential.
However, this is an ideal we can only try to achieve-- I am beginning to wonder if American politics could follow such honor or American media could discourage dishonest campaigning / drive that behavior to extinction through ignoring improper behavior.