-- EMO PHILLIPS
If the first couple of months of the 2016 presidential race are any indication, we could be in for the most ridiculous election season since 1988.
If you're old enough to remember -- or if you read Jack Germond's wonderful book "Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars?" -- you'll know that the 1988 campaign swung on three non-issue issues. George H.W. Bush attacked Democrat Michael Dukakis for being soft on the Pledge of Allegiance, for being a "card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union and for allowing Willie Horton out on a weekend furlough from prison.
Of course, Dukakis helped by being the worst possible Democratic candidate. If he hadn't already lost the election by then, the photo of him riding in a tank -- his "Rocky the Flying Squirrel" moment -- wrapped things up.
We have certainly had some silly elections since then, but the Republicans in particular have been getting goofier and goofier. Whether it was Sarah Palin and being able to see Russia or Mitt Romney saying corporations were people too, they became more and more difficult to take seriously.
But the upcoming cycle may top all of them. With the right wing fired up about immigration and same-sex marriage, the coalition between low-tax libertarians and the religious right is feeling strained at the seams.
In fact, different Republican candidates seem to be running for different things.
Donald Trump wants to be emperor.
Mike Huckabee wants to be pope.
Carly Fiorina wants to be CEO.
Jeb Bush wants to be George W. Bush.
Ben Carson wants to be president even though he has never even run for dogcatcher before.
Most of the other candidates are just modern Harvey Fiersteins. "(They) just want to be loved. Is that so wrong?"
But it wouldn't matter if George Washington, Ronald Reagan, Jesus Christ or Winston Churchill were running and making specific policy proposals every day. The media isn't covering an election in which intelligent decisions are made based on candidates' platforms and experience.
They don't do that anymore.
It's too difficult for our electronic media, which was never wonderful, to deal with difficult issues with attention spans the way they are now. When the concept of sound bites came along in the 1960s, the clips used were two minutes long. A decade or so later that time was down to 30 seconds, and by the end of the century sound bites were 7 seconds long.
Way too short, and the average viewer doesn't really understand the nuances of the issues anyway. It's why conservatives were able to get away with claims that made no sense at all. Reagan could say some of the most ridiculous things, like cutting taxes on the rich would result in more revenue for the government or that the nuclear missiles on submarines were the best because they could be recalled after they had been launched.
At one time, it was the job, even the duty, of newspapers, radio and television to inform the public. The biggest difference has been the decline in newspapers.
The numbers above show a pretty amazing decline since 1990, but that's really only the end of the story. If you look back to 1950, just before television news became a factor, newspaper penetration of the market was 130 percent.
That meant that the average American adult read 1.3 newspapers per day. Most decent-sized cities had at least two newspapers, one in the morning and one in the evening, and many people subscribed to two papers.
Evening papers are all but gone now, but between 1979 and 1988, three of the first five places I worked as a journalist were evening papers. I guarantee our readers got better in-depth coverage of almost everything from us than they did from the Eyewitness Action News or whatever it was called on television.
That was our advantage. We could go in depth in a way television never could, but as soon as the Internet came along, newspaper executives rolled over and showed their bellies. Everything became about speed -- tweeting, podcasting, blogging -- and in-depth coverage was all but dead.
Oh, and they gave everything away for free online. And while they tired to monetize their websites later, the idea many folks had that the Internet should always be free made that difficult.
So now there's nobody doing real news. The folks who call themselves reporters and commentators cover the campaign like it's a ballgame or a pennant race. They won't tell you what Hillary Clinton says about issues, but they'll tell you how much she's gaining or losing in the polls. They'll tell you her approval or disapproval ratings and how much Bernie Sanders is cutting into her support.
On the Republican side, everything is about Donald Trump. He rarely talks about issues, spending most of his time appealing to the id of the Republican Party.
He attacks Carly Fiorina for her looks and Jeb Bush for his energy level. He treats his opponents as though if they were really on his level, they would be in business like him instead of politics.
When Trump speaks of issues, he's prone to outrageous statements. He says not only will there be a border wall with Mexico, he'll get Mexico to build it and pay for it.
He can say the most ridiculous things and no one will call him a liar.
It's amazing the amount of time that has been spent on meaningless issues like Planned Parenthood, same-sex marriage and Benghazi, and the fact that Republicans are still getting away with saying tax cuts for the rich are a good thing boggles the mind.
We've got trouble.
Thomas Jefferson understood it when he said he would rather have newspapers without a government than a government without newspapers.
We've essentially got the second situation now.
It's not good.
If you're old enough to remember -- or if you read Jack Germond's wonderful book "Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars?" -- you'll know that the 1988 campaign swung on three non-issue issues. George H.W. Bush attacked Democrat Michael Dukakis for being soft on the Pledge of Allegiance, for being a "card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union and for allowing Willie Horton out on a weekend furlough from prison.
 |
| Dukakis '88 |
We have certainly had some silly elections since then, but the Republicans in particular have been getting goofier and goofier. Whether it was Sarah Palin and being able to see Russia or Mitt Romney saying corporations were people too, they became more and more difficult to take seriously.
But the upcoming cycle may top all of them. With the right wing fired up about immigration and same-sex marriage, the coalition between low-tax libertarians and the religious right is feeling strained at the seams.
In fact, different Republican candidates seem to be running for different things.
Donald Trump wants to be emperor.
Carly Fiorina wants to be CEO.
Jeb Bush wants to be George W. Bush.
Ben Carson wants to be president even though he has never even run for dogcatcher before.
Most of the other candidates are just modern Harvey Fiersteins. "(They) just want to be loved. Is that so wrong?"
But it wouldn't matter if George Washington, Ronald Reagan, Jesus Christ or Winston Churchill were running and making specific policy proposals every day. The media isn't covering an election in which intelligent decisions are made based on candidates' platforms and experience.
They don't do that anymore.
It's too difficult for our electronic media, which was never wonderful, to deal with difficult issues with attention spans the way they are now. When the concept of sound bites came along in the 1960s, the clips used were two minutes long. A decade or so later that time was down to 30 seconds, and by the end of the century sound bites were 7 seconds long.
Way too short, and the average viewer doesn't really understand the nuances of the issues anyway. It's why conservatives were able to get away with claims that made no sense at all. Reagan could say some of the most ridiculous things, like cutting taxes on the rich would result in more revenue for the government or that the nuclear missiles on submarines were the best because they could be recalled after they had been launched.
At one time, it was the job, even the duty, of newspapers, radio and television to inform the public. The biggest difference has been the decline in newspapers.
The numbers above show a pretty amazing decline since 1990, but that's really only the end of the story. If you look back to 1950, just before television news became a factor, newspaper penetration of the market was 130 percent.
That meant that the average American adult read 1.3 newspapers per day. Most decent-sized cities had at least two newspapers, one in the morning and one in the evening, and many people subscribed to two papers.
Evening papers are all but gone now, but between 1979 and 1988, three of the first five places I worked as a journalist were evening papers. I guarantee our readers got better in-depth coverage of almost everything from us than they did from the Eyewitness Action News or whatever it was called on television.
That was our advantage. We could go in depth in a way television never could, but as soon as the Internet came along, newspaper executives rolled over and showed their bellies. Everything became about speed -- tweeting, podcasting, blogging -- and in-depth coverage was all but dead.
Oh, and they gave everything away for free online. And while they tired to monetize their websites later, the idea many folks had that the Internet should always be free made that difficult.
So now there's nobody doing real news. The folks who call themselves reporters and commentators cover the campaign like it's a ballgame or a pennant race. They won't tell you what Hillary Clinton says about issues, but they'll tell you how much she's gaining or losing in the polls. They'll tell you her approval or disapproval ratings and how much Bernie Sanders is cutting into her support.
 |
| Fiorina and Trump |
He attacks Carly Fiorina for her looks and Jeb Bush for his energy level. He treats his opponents as though if they were really on his level, they would be in business like him instead of politics.
When Trump speaks of issues, he's prone to outrageous statements. He says not only will there be a border wall with Mexico, he'll get Mexico to build it and pay for it.
He can say the most ridiculous things and no one will call him a liar.
It's amazing the amount of time that has been spent on meaningless issues like Planned Parenthood, same-sex marriage and Benghazi, and the fact that Republicans are still getting away with saying tax cuts for the rich are a good thing boggles the mind.
We've got trouble.
Thomas Jefferson understood it when he said he would rather have newspapers without a government than a government without newspapers.
We've essentially got the second situation now.
It's not good.
No comments:
Post a Comment