Oh, the irony.
In a lengthy piece, a couple of writers for Politico are bemoaning the
smallness of the 2012 presidential race, which they say is due to Twitter and
the 24-hour, seven-day-a-week news cycle. Politico embodies aspects of what a
Columbia Journalism Review article calls the “hamster wheel approach” to news. But at
least the writers admit this:
“The endless news cycle, infused with partisanship thanks to cable news and
coupled with the Internet-age imperative to produce faster, more provocative
copy, has amplified every cynical and self-indulgent impulse of the political
press — POLITICO included.”
But enough of my cynicism. The article is excellent for the points it makes,
for the truth it contains, and for the fact that two respected political
reporters – Maggie Haberman and Alexander Burns – explain how the media and the
candidates are shortchanging voters.
“The Obama and Romney campaigns spend all day strafing each
other on Twitter, all while decrying the campaign’s lack of serious ideas for a
serious time,” they write. “Yet at most junctures when they’ve had the
opportunity to go big, they’ve chosen to go small. Obama has spoken in broad
strokes about his accomplishments but has not yet outlined a detailed agenda
for a second term. Romney has openly declared that he will not detail his
policy proposals — slashing the size of government, for example — so as to
avoid giving his opponents ammunition.”
Voters deserve to know presidential candidates’ positions and ideas. It
shouldn’t matter if that’ll provide fodder for opponents. Disagreement and
substantial debate are what big elections are about, or should be about.
This article appears in Bye bye unions?.
