Everybody knows Media reports news and events. Media does this to keep everyone informed of the most important things going on in the world. This is why Media exists.
The first sentence is factually true even though there will inevitably be those who try to refute it. The second sentence flies around the truth and may sometimes land on it. The third is flatly false.
Most people assume that whatever is on the screen is the truth and that it is the most important truth.
No. It is the story that Media can run based on two main considerations. One, the story best satisfies the expectation that Media reports the most relevant news and events and, two, the story best supports the bottom line. Media runs stories that are relevant, but Media also runs stories that are profitable, that is, stories that will maintain or increase viewership which maintains or increases sponsorship. Ideally, these two would go in lockstep. But they don’t. So, when choosing stories to run, there is always a balance to be struck between which is the most appropriate and the most popular. If you can run only one story, then the story will represent the best compromise between these two considerations.
Of course, the bottom line wins out. In the grossest terms, this is why murder sells in the news. And why the newscaster always seems to have, if you are paying attention, a special kind of excitement and focus when reporting murders and other violent crimes that has very little to do with regret, remorse or sadness. Murder boosts income for Media. More people like to watch murders than current events. More people watching the news means more people watching the advertisements. Stop reporting every murder and more people go to the competitor that is reporting every murder along with the advertising revenue. This also controls news on the other side of sports (Regulated, often times violent, competition) and is so often warm fuzzy inanities. Once the men have had their murders and review of their favorite gladiators, the women get their warm fuzzies. But, seriously, whose life is that barren? Apparently, a lot; enough to control the fuzziness of what shows up on the news.
I first noticed how Media control elections in the 2000 presidential election with George W. Bush and Al Gore. It wasn’t that the coverage of the campaigns clearly favored one over the other. It was nothing more than how often images of the candidates were shown and for how long.
I noticed that whenever, for example, Bush was ahead in the pre-election polls, and particularly if it appeared that he was only going to widen the gap, a number of things might happen. These are what I noticed and the order they seemed to be done.
- Unbalanced amount of image exposure.
- Decrease the amount of time the image of the leader was shown, either as stills or as videos.
- Increase the amount of time the image of the lagger was shown, either as stills or as videos.
- Unbalanced amount of quote exposure.
- Shorter quotes by the leader.
- Longer quotes by the lagger.
As the polls became even, the coverage of the candidates would even out as well. If the polls started to swing the other way, the coverage would swing to counter the movement of the polls. It was subtle. At first I thought I was just being bitter, biased, and was overreacting. So I started paying more attention. And, lo and behold, “my” candidate started getting a level of attention that I thought appropriate. He started getting ahead in the polls. Yay. But, just when I thought the campaign and the election were put away, the opponent started showing up more on the screen and I was left wondering why the media didn’t like him or her anymore.
I was, uh, stupid.
Why, oh, why on earth would Media do this? Oh, me, oh, my. Well, nothing crowds viewers around the screen like a close match. Those are the crowds that drive sponsorship and that bottom line.
Everything I had suspected with the Bush/Gore race was proved with the Bush/Kerry race. Kerry was clearly ahead and clearly on track to win. Then his images and quotes decrease in frequency and duration. Still ahead. Bush becomes regularly mentioned first in political reporting. Example, instead of saying Kerry is ahead, saying Bush is trailing. Not “Will Kerry win?”. Rather, “Will Bush catch up?” The race becomes Bush-centric. Kerry still ahead.
Whoops! The U-boat (bullshit) Incident. Nothing is said about politics without mentioning the damned U-boat first. Polls start to converge. The viewership/crowd starts to take notice again. Bush catches up. The crowd leans in. Bush takes the lead. The crowd is transfixed. Bush wins. The crowd goes wild. 51-49% (Or whatever. It’s close as it will always be). Immediate questions in Media of how will the nation unite, how will Bush deal with a divided Congress, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah.
Had Kerry won, the particulars of the outcome would have differed only in the names of the winner and loser. The dynamics would have been identical.
But then, Barack Obama gave the keynote address to the 2004 Democratic Convention and, in doing so, blindsided every political norm known to humankind up to that time.
The problem for Mainstream Media became how to do candidate impression management with the Race Card in play. I don’t suggest that Obama or his campaign suppressed Mainstream Media with the threat of the Race Card. The truth is, the campaign was too savvy to do something that crude. The problem for Mainstream Media–what made them their own worst enemy, if you will–was their own experience with the volatility of race issues in the USA. In particular, if you cross an ever-changing, and therefore unknowable, line you get inundated with charges of racially-motivated denigration and you eventually lose credibility.
Mainstream Media’s ability to influence viewers without stirring the race maelstrom simply wasn’t up to the task and for the first time in many elections, Wolf Blitzer was able to call the election in the first minute after the last voting booth closed.
This can happen in an unregulated election.
At the same time, Mainstream Media was not to be too upset at their loss of control over the election. By dawn of the day after President Obama’s election, Media had not only beaten the significance of his skin color to death, but had continued until the wonder of this strange, new color in the White House had been pounded into hamburger. Suddenly, the new president made every political story shimmer with his polished blackness. It was possibly the best crowd draw since 9/11. I’m sure it was a golden period regarding sponsorship.
Just so you know, Barack Obama is the only president in my lifetime that made me wish for a third term.