Harrumphing into the future
Peder Zane at The N&O makes a valiant attempt to explain why the news media focus on what I call the superficial in presidential campaigns: John Edwards' hair, Clinton's cleavage, Thompson's younger wife, Giuliani in drag. Harrumphers who blame the media for these personal stories are shooting the messengers. The media are not creating the demand; they are satisfying it. People want to feel a connection with the candidate whose mug they'll have to look at constantly for four to eight years.
He says Edwards haircuts fuel suspicions that he may have more style than substance. The dresses Giuliani donned for the 1997 comic skits symbolize the issue of whether this pro-choice New Yorker might be out of step with traditional Republican voters. Fred Thompson's much younger wife -- he's 64, she's 40 -- raises questions about his commitment to family values. John McCain's sweater suggests that the man who once drove the Straight Talk Express may be letting consultants call the shots as he tries to revive his campaign. And Hillary Clinton's cleavage reminds us of the challenges she faces as she tries to become America's first woman president.
That's a mouthful of justifications that probably should have remained in his computer. Thompson's young wife raises questions about his family values? Does anyone who is going to vote not understand that a woman faces challenges in the campaign? A politician listening to a consultant? Why, what's next?
A newspaper doesn't need to run a single story about any of those topics, except Edwards' $400 haircut. Readers wouldn't miss anything. They wouldn't be any less informed. In fact, they wouldn't draw irrelevant and, perhaps, incorrect conclusions from the sweater or the wife choices. No, newspapers write about these things because they can, because they are titillating, because they'll get talked about.
There's nothing wrong with those reasons. I don't even mind those types of stories. But don't try to pass off the infatuation with them as being based on intense reader interest or as having a serious political purpose. People seem to want "to feel a connection" with Paris Hilton and high-speed car chases, but that doesn't mean we publish even more stories about her or send helicopters into the air.
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
1) Look at the record.
2) Look at the record.
3) Look at the record.
And follow the money, of course.
That's all it takes, and that's far too much for a lot of news organizations to handle.
Posted on July 30, 2007 8:27 PM
I'm not really the commenting type, but I had to chime in on this one.
The Washington Post's ombudswoman recently wrote a column dedicated to reader responses to the Clinton cleavage story, which was written by their Pulitzer-winning fashion editor.
It was the most-read item on their Web site that day. And, as a daily reader of that paper's style section, I can say it was interesting and amusing. I don't think it served any button-pushing political purpose; but I think the story was valid in noting Clinton's clothing choice in a historically conservative setting.
As for Edwards' hair ... well, since the 2nd or so story, that has seemed, to me, like overkill.
Posted on July 30, 2007 11:46 PM