The “mainstream media,” as we recently heard, has been likened to a Hillary Clinton Super PAC. Good line, Sen. Rubio. The redder the raw-meat sound bite, the better the debate dynamic. To the victors go the gotcha spoils. Are we ultimately electing a quipster-in-chief?
These are not Lincoln-Douglas rejoinders. This isn’t Howard K. Smith moderating Kennedy-Nixon–or even Buckley-Vidal. It’s what we’ve devolved into. We’ve all seen it coming.
The die was cast when Rupert Murdoch knew he had a rich niche programming against the status quo, moderate-left media. Ideological overcompensation resulted. And thank you, cable-TV epoch. Game on.
Whether it’s Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow, it’s all about ratings. And sponsors. And conflict. Viewers know where to go for validation–not news analysis.
Indeed, well measured discussions about anything might suit C-SPAN or PBS, but it’s the conflict sizzle that sells–from the right or left–and attracts viewers. Can’t outshout? Can’t interrupt? Can’t demonize? Can’t defer? Tough shtick.
It’s no quantum leap to apply the formula to presidential debates. When the first question to a would-be leader of the free world is asking about their greatest weakness–and then never getting around to inquire about the debt ceiling–you know you’ve reached the point of no return. “What’s My Line?” had better queries.
While put-downs and show-stopping zingers are on the rise, context and accuracy continue to spiral down in presidential debates. The serious, world-impacting process of such debates has never been so trivialized. Then add the circus-act candidacy of uber infotainer Donald Trump.
The result leaves little debate. At best, this is show business. At worst, this is a democratic embarrassment–and grist for the fall-of-the-Roman-Empire-analogy mill.
We deserve better.