Posted by D. Cupples | The word of the week seems to be "change." During one minute of the New Hampshire debate, John Edwards used that word eight times. (Transcript) Before the debate, in an interview with Keith Olbermann after the Iowa Caucus, Edwards labeled Hillary Clinton the "Status Quo" candidate and proclaimed himself and Barack Obama "The change candidates." So that no one would miss that pithy (albeit banal) phrase, Edwards repeated it three times and separately used the word "change" six times -- inspiring Olbermann to wonder if "change" will become a new theme for the rest of the campaign. (Video).
Actually, it's an old theme. During most of 2007, all Democratic presidential candidates (and Republicans seeking distance from Bush) strongly advocated for big change. Why, all of a sudden, is that six-letter word getting so much media hype?
Perhaps severe limits on time and column-inch space compel pundits and journalists to latch onto conveniently short words and phrases. Admittedly, I have no clue why they further insist on rhythmically chanting said words, as though seeking to lull themselves (and their audiences) into a meditative state.
Perhaps media personalities are too overworked to devote significant time to rooting out real issues or formulating original descriptions of events.
Because of the media's time and space limits, candidates are forced to make quick and simple statements, sometimes at accuracy's expense. Time limits at candidate debates only intensify the assault on accuracy. In New Hampshire, for example, Edwards complained about the influence of lobbyists, and Obama simply stated:
"I just want to add I agree with John, which is why I prohibited lobbyists from buying meals for members of Congress." (Transcript)
It's a decent sound-byte, implying that Obama singlehandedly reduced lobbyists' influence (though, meals and cocktails aren't the real problem -- our campaign finance system is).
The moderator quickly pointed out a detail in the lobbying-reform bill that Obama's reasonably concise sentence failed to address:
"They can now buy food for members of Congress if the members of Congress are standing up. (Laughter.) That's my understanding what the rules have changed. You can't sit down and eat, but you can stand up and eat." (Transcript)
In other words, Congressmen can attend lobbyist-funded gatherings with lavish spreads of food, but they can't go to sit-down dinners. Talk about a loophole. If the moderator hadn't pointed it out, most of us might have believed that Obama had (singlehandedly) made huge headway in reducing the flow of gifts and money from lobbyists to our elected representatives.
That's only one example, and I heard each candidate make at least one overly simplified or inaccurately exaggerated statement that I doubt would withstand scrutiny.
I'm not indicting anyone here, because it's no one's fault. Practically speaking, we can't reduce the news media's time and space limits, which means politicians can't effectively change the way they address the media.
What we can do --as readers and audience members -- is: 1) remember the limits that our politicians and media face, and 2) review the resulting messages with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Memeorandum has other bloggers' commentary.
Comments