Thursday, July 29, 2004
More, More, More
With something like four media people for every delegate at the Democratic Convention, it's no wonder that so much is written about media coverage. Today, I've come across some interesting suggestions regarding a problem with the coverage of the convention that's easy to ignore--one that seems counter-intuitive when you finally do notice it. John Nichols in the Capital Times and Patricia J. Williams in The Nation both point out that for all the problems with the coverage, the most significant might be that there's not enough of it.
Yes, the cable channels are filling hours and hours, but the media outlets that still get the majority of viewers--the old standby broadcast networks--are giving the convention only token coverage, and have done so for 20 years now. You couldn't hear Barack Obama on the networks the other night, and while his speech has generated lots of buzz in our more plugged-in precincts, it was like a tree falling in an uninhabited forest for the rest of the country. Williams says:
Recommended Reading: Of course, even if the major networks were covering the conventions like they used to, wall-to-wall in prime time, there's no guarantee that we'd be any better enlightened. Lawrence Martin of The Globe and Mail in Toronto suggests that the American media is more political conduit than journalistic enterprise, and nothing shows it more than the uncritical reportage of whatever the administration yaks up on a given day.
With something like four media people for every delegate at the Democratic Convention, it's no wonder that so much is written about media coverage. Today, I've come across some interesting suggestions regarding a problem with the coverage of the convention that's easy to ignore--one that seems counter-intuitive when you finally do notice it. John Nichols in the Capital Times and Patricia J. Williams in The Nation both point out that for all the problems with the coverage, the most significant might be that there's not enough of it.
Yes, the cable channels are filling hours and hours, but the media outlets that still get the majority of viewers--the old standby broadcast networks--are giving the convention only token coverage, and have done so for 20 years now. You couldn't hear Barack Obama on the networks the other night, and while his speech has generated lots of buzz in our more plugged-in precincts, it was like a tree falling in an uninhabited forest for the rest of the country. Williams says:
And yet so much of the press makes such a big deal about whether Kerry can "define" himself. No one defines himself in a vacuum--but if all that the networks plan to show is Kerry's acceptance speech and very little else, then that is precisely what he will have to do. That's a pity. [Tuesday] night, the eloquent and optimistic jeremiads quite clearly defined Kerry and his platform as one premised upon the politics of hope.It's unlikely that the dearth of major network coverage of the conventions is entirely responsible for the decline in political involvement and political wisdom amongst the electorate. But it's sure possible today for citizens to simply opt out in a way that didn't exist in past years.
The Republican right has spent so much time and money "defining" Kerry as a "flip-flopper," and a chorus of outlets repeats that message thousands of times a day. Kerry's counter can never be heard, however, if it is reduced to a single media soundbite chosen by others.
Recommended Reading: Of course, even if the major networks were covering the conventions like they used to, wall-to-wall in prime time, there's no guarantee that we'd be any better enlightened. Lawrence Martin of The Globe and Mail in Toronto suggests that the American media is more political conduit than journalistic enterprise, and nothing shows it more than the uncritical reportage of whatever the administration yaks up on a given day.
