http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mitt-romney-message-t-fill-stadium-article-1.1028337
Our discussion this morning about political pictures in campaigns really made me want to write about this article. Romney gave a key economic speech last week in the Detroit Lions stadium. However, the media coverage highlighted two things amidst the other important items mentioned in his speech.
1. How BADDD it looked for Romney to give a speech to what seemed an empty stadium. Over 1200 people attended, but the stadium is built for 65,000, giving the appearance that Romney vastly undersold the event, reflecting his apparent popularity.
2. How BADDD it sounds when Romney says to Detroit auto workers that his wife drives "a couple of Cadillacs." Granted, probably not smart, but what got no coverage was his defense of the statement and the purpose behind, but thats probably his fault for saying it anyway.
Point is, less coverage was given to the content and purpose of his speech than was the image of Romney delivering the speech to the empty stadium. This could bode badly for Romney as Santorum heats up the campaign competition. However, as we have seen the media tends to pass things of little political relevance as things of importance. Does it really matter, really, that Romney gave a speech in the wrong forum? Does it matter politically if Putin rides a horse without a shirt on? Romney has slipped up a few times, "I don't care about the poor" thing, and now this, but who knows more about his political ideologies, philosophy, or voting record because of these stories? It's not the end of the world, but I certainly see a good opportunity for the media to use these entertainment stories as a way to draw readers in and then almost subliminally inform them.
As Lance Bennett notes, theres no problem with recognizing these stories or presenting them, but when they fail to connect them to larger political and economic issues it becomes a problem. Perhaps the entertainment value is way higher, and I see the possibility of drawing audiences in with entertainment stories or political slip-ups, but I see the failure of the media to connect to larger issues. Sometimes they do, so I will give them some credit there, but I'm still not sure why Romney's empty stadium speech should get headline picture coverage.
I agree that these sort of "blips" in a nominee's campaign trail are focused on far too much. We need to get down to more straight facts. I think it's important to highlight comments that indicate a disparity between Romney and the general public- this obviously exists and is an important part of his campaign. Some argue it could affect his ability to preside. However, he defended himself, explained his comments, and this didn't get any coverage. I think this might be because of the short attention span Americans have when watching/reading the news, but I'm sure the majority of us would have liked to hear the reasoning behind it all, instead of being spoon fed gossip Kardashian-style. Great post Spence.
ReplyDelete