With the first presidential primary just around the corner, presidential debates, like the recent Democratic face-off, are getting nastier as opponents go for the knock-out punch. This final, brutal sprint for the brass ring of American politics – the White House – also signals the start of hunting season for the media. Even the slightest mistake from a candidate will attract a volley of pot-shots from trigger-happy reporters who are eager to take them down.
Journalism careers are made and broken by successful or failed attacks on presidential candidates. No journalist has ever won an award for uncovering feel-good stories about front-runners – so even the most heartwarming stories of courage in the John Edwards camp won’t earn the reporter a trophy. The industry’s most prestigious awards go to the hard-hitting, investigative reporters who uncover the most explosive scandals. If they knock a front-runner like Hilary Clinton out of contention, a best-selling book, a place in history, and maybe even a movie await them. If they knock out the biggest target of all – the President himself – the reporter is guaranteed the most coveted prize of all – a Pulitzer.
Gates of heaven, gates of hell
In 1973, the Washington Post received the Pulitzer Prize for breaking the Watergate scandal that drove President Richard Nixon to resignation and disgrace. Its leading investigative team, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, went on to write best-selling books and to have movies made about them.
In 2004, during the presidential race, CBS anchorman Dan Rather’s illustrious career went down in flames after he reported on a letter supposedly written by George Bush’s former National Guard commander. The commander said he had “sugarcoated” his evaluation of Bush’s performance as a Texas National Guard due to political pressure. What should have been Rather’s crowning achievement proved his downfall. Doubtlessly distracted with the writing of his acceptance speech for the Pulitzer, Rather chose to skip the pesky, but crucial step of confirming his sources. When the letter turned out to be forged, Rather was forced to take a quick exit into retirement – and disgrace.
All the world’s a stage
That is why very few journalists covering presidential debates ever really listen to what the candidates say – rather, they watch how well they perform on stage. They rate the candidates the same way a Broadway critic reviews the actors of a new play. If a candidate’s voice should break at an inopportune time, or they should momentarily stammer in responding to a question, he is ridiculed for giving a poor performance. If a candidate should be caught in the path of a rather witty insult by an opponent – and he cannot dodge it with a superior, snappier comeback - he will have lost the race.
In a 1988 debate, American Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Lloyd Bentsen told Republican vice-presidential candidate Dan Quayle, “Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.” A stunned Quayle had no comeback – and this doomed Quayle’s chances of ever becoming president as much as Quayle’s infamous spelling of “potatoe.”
With the New Hampshire Primary less than two months away and presidential candidates desperately jockeying for position, some are bound to make mistakes. Journalists are lovingly oiling their muskets and checking that they have enough ammunition.
-------------------------
Mario’s column, Point of Convergence, published to Gather Essentials: Politics, looks at the American political landscape and the people and events that make the news. Mario is a culture trend expert who frequently speaks on cultural, political and social issues that impact modern life. Keep up with Mario’s other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click popculture and select the orange “Connect” button on the left side of the page.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 35
Using the debates does not help prove your point, either. The media report on flubs or good lines because that is what is generally newsworthy from a debate. On the rare occasions when you have heard a candidate actually say something substantively new at a debate, that is what will get the attention.
And, unless I'm much mistaken, Quayle's lack of a comeback didn't doom his chances of becoming President. He (and HW) won the election, and Quayle was a heartbeat away for four years.
Finally, I take issue with your characterization of the Dan Rather saga, and your implication that it was proven that the letter was forged.
Thanks for the good comment, Jeff.
Mario, I think this sentence answers your own question in an indirect way. Journalists don't pay much attention to a candidate's, any candidate's, answers at these staged events any more. I intentionally call them events, because I haven't seen a real presidential debate in my lifetime. A couple have almost come close, but none have risen to what I would call a "debate". The candidate's offer canned answers to canned questions. There's no news in that, Mario. All that is left to report from these "debates" is when when one of the "actors" go off script or flubs a line.
To me, a debate would require the candidate's to challenge each other's answers and engage in a dialog over their differences. We really don't see much of this in these stylized press conferences.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Finally, I take issue with your characterization of the Dan Rather saga, and your implication that it was proven that the letter was forged.
paul w., Nov 2, 2007, 3:35am EDT
Paul, even Rather has acceded to the letter's lack of authenticity. I can find the quote, if you like; but, I believe in was something to the effect of, "just because the letter wasn't authentic doesn't mean the story wasn't true."
If the letter is fake and you base the story on the letter -- the story is fake. That seems pretty clear to me.
Wow, someone call mom back home, use that new fangled thing they call a tell-E-phone. *chuckle*
So the media is scum, what a surpised, you've awakened us all to the truth, AMEN brother.........
Now What ???
Yeah, the media is not looking for the heart-warming story.... But, maybe it's just because everything else has already been covered. We all know the jist of the candidates. We can find their bios with a simple click of the mouse. They need to give us more in order for it to be "news." Unfortunately, the population doesn't want feel-good stories as much as the media doesn't want to give them.
I do not want to hear how Hillary Clinton saves puppies... That's not going to make me vote for or against her. They need to give me something else. They need to prove to me WHY Hillary does not deserve the presidency (or why Obama doesn't deserve it, or Edwards for that matter).
As for the stage thing and reporting on flubbed lines or missed cues... Yeah, but, more specifically (and this also responds to Jeff's comment), the media does not question the candidates, the media spins the words in order to make it a better story. One sentence can be taken multiple different ways when reported by various newspapers. One reporter may think that it was a great line while another thinks that it's the nail in the coffin for the particular candidate.
jJack, you're right, my article doesn't offer any stunning revelations and simply states the obvious. It's presented for your reading pleasure. But, sadly, even if I were to offer stunning revelations, it would have the same impact - people would nod in agreement, go on with their lives, and nothing would change in the world.
For example, all anybody remembers about Michael Dukakis' failed presidential bid was that he did not act sufficiently "outraged" at the hypothetical rape and murder of his wife - so the media said. He was portrayed as too cold and unfeeling - that lost him the chance at the White House.
How about the Howard Dean "scream." The media manufacturered that news and cost him his chance at the presidential nomination. The media knew that it was really the unlucky positioning of the microphones that made him sound weird - but they harped on it anyway and drove him out of the race.
1) glass half empty types
2) glass half full types
It's too bad, in my opinion, so many are opting to be the half empty types. Blame blame blame, is if you have no power in the arena you cede to "big business."
I wonder why it's never dawned upon the people bemoaning and wailing about how the little guy always gets screwed by the "big bad "corporation" or the "evil government."
It would be my guess if the citizens of the USA had a shift back to self reliance and commonsense, many of the "problems" you have today, would simply go away.
Still, the viewers get a sense of Clinton the candidate from the exchange. Not a totally bad thing, IMO.
Mario A., Nov 2, 2007, 9:47am EDT
That's not what I'm saying at all, Mario. My point is these "debates" are essentially wortless when trying to use them as anything substantative with which to evaluate the candidates. Occasionally, there is a tough question that cuts through the canned responses to reveal something, but not often. And example of that was Russert's attempt to nail down exactly what Hillary's answer to the drivers' license issue was. We see the hot water he's gotten in for that, and she still never answered the question.
The answer is simple: Reporters too are going for the brass ring of awards and fame, and they play the game in the hopes of landing their own prize.
I like it that they pound the hell out of the candidates. These people are vying for the office that will be our face all around the World. If they can't take some tough questioning from our own reporters, how will they do in front of international press?
The answer is simple: Reporters too are going for the brass ring of awards and fame, and they play the game in the hopes of landing their own prize.
Mario A., Nov 2, 2007, 11:49am EDT
Or, it could be that they are questioning their "brothers-in-arms", as it were, particularly when it comes to the Democrat debates. Don't want to make them look bad, you know. Even at that, Russert was pretty agressive in holding Hillary's feet to the fire ... or a while. But, he too, ultimately let her off the hook.
Jim - I understand and appreciate your point that there are a hundred different ways for people to get concrete information on the candidates' platform. You are basically saying that "the truth is out there" and the PUBLIC can find it if they look hard enough...
...but, again, that shouldn't exclude the media from responsibility. I accept tabloid journalism for what it is because those "reporters" don't pretend to be anything more than gossip mongers. However, political analysts and white house reporters put themselves out there as serious journalists seeking out the truth, so I judge them by the standards they themselves purport to uphold - and that's where they fall short.
While we obviously have a long way to go, we've come a pretty long way as well.
Great article !!!!!!
It is a very different world today, where anyone can widely publish their take of what happened. Candidates even have their own version of "embedded" coverage, what with supporters following opponents and recording their every quote, ensuring that a candidate can never make a human mistake. Do you think the media is alone in salivating at missteps?
It is most imperative that we maintain a free and unfettered press, even if that means listening to half truths, lies, and innuendos at times, if we are to maintain our freedom. Our vote becomes worthless if the information we receive is in any way controlled!
How silly-- as the dissemination of "news" and "entertainment" alike is "controlled," and has been "controled" since the day the "free press" was first presented.
It is a contrived "honesty" and one arrogantly proclaimed, whenever anyone suggest the "forth estate" is anything but "free" to carry out the agenda of the publisher.
This is after all, why the publisher begins such a venture in the first place.
I'll basically agree with you as that is exactly why many news sources were purchased. However, they are not controlled by the government. And there is nothing to prevent a disagreeing billionaire from purchasing his own news service and influencing it according to his will. That the difference between free press and unbiased press. No one has a reasonable expectation of the latter. Witness our basically conservative press throughout the nation.
No, the "free press" is reserved to those who publish just as the concept of "free trade" is totally illusionary and reserved to the captains of commerce!
Thanks, jJack!
Simpy because a "free press" legally exists, in no way demonstrates a pledge to an unstated rule for the profession. What you seem to insist is "illegal," I would rather call it adaptation. I am also not sure you can justify the statement, Witness our basically conservative press throughout the nation.
Lastly, I'm not sure how you can say on one hand, "free will doesn't exist," AND call it "total illusionary," yet then freely admitting the concept is "reserved to the captains of commerce."
It seems you see a thing, when needed, and if not, you igore it at your leisure.
That's because, I didn't say "free will doesn't exist!" It does. If anywhere, in any of my posts or responses, I've stated that free will doesn't exist, it is a type as that is not my belief! We are in total agreement on that.
And we also seem to agree that a "free press" and an "unbiased press" are not the same thing and that the free press is what we have, not unbiased.
Thanks, jJack!
You wrote this and now you're telling me that what you said is, I'm finding this incredibly hard to believe, wrong! Ah c'm on now jJack, you didn't make an error. That is not possible!
Just to clear this up, free will is everybody's. Free trade is reserved to the captains of industry and free press is, as you pointed out, reserved to those who can afford the press. Now, is there any confusion here? I'm slow, but I'll get there!
Thanks jJack!