Portfolio's Jeff Bercovici is a Cable Game fave. In a new post, he makes a string of acute points about presidential debates, especially the Fox News vs. Ron Paul debate-about-debates.
First, he reminds us that the media are players in the presidential debates--not just neutral participants, but players. Of course, the media are inherently in the mix--it's the Marshall McLuhan version of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, "the act of observing a thing, changes that thing.''
As Bercovici writes, "The network news operations prefer to pretend they're observers, not participants. In keeping with this fiction, they typically open debates to all comers, or gin up neutral-sounding criteria for inclusion, like those ABC established for its own upcoming debate, to ensure also-rans stay on the sidelines."
OK, so the media are part of the mix--the medium might not be the message, but it is the messenger.
Second, Jeff makes clear that even the "neutral" debates are tilted toward the frontrunners. Of course they are: If you watch a Democratic debate, you want to watch Hillary Rodham Clinton vs. Barack Obama vs. John Edwards, because you know that there's a 99% likelihood that one of that trio is going to be the Democratic nominee. Here's Jeff again:
More often than not, however, "open" debates still focus on a few front-runners, leaving the second-tier candidates desperate to get a word in. The frustration of being consistently ignored even led Democrat Chris Dodd to post a "Talk-o-Meter" on his website, tracking how many minutes each candidate was allowed to speak.
Fox may be restricting debate to the candidates it considers legitimate, but at least it's doing so in a relatively transparent fashion, rather than using the lesser candidates as silent props to suggest, falsely, that everyone has an equal voice.
And so, Jeff concludes,
Fox may be restricting debate to the candidates it considers legitimate, but at least it's doing so in a relatively transparent fashion, rather than using the lesser candidates as silent props to suggest, falsely, that everyone has an equal voice.
And, hey, not for nothing, Fox's decision means we'll get to hear more in-depth answers from the candidates who actually stand a reasonable chance of moving into the White House a year from now. Shouldn't those of us who like to complain about the debates offering nothing but sound bites be grateful for that?
Indeed!
