Joan Konner
 |
 When it comes to politics and journalism, this primary
season past was good as it gets.
Any citizen who watched CNN's "Inside Politics"
regularly, or who read a reasonable newspaper or
newsmagazine, or who followed the news and discussion
on PBS' Newshour and National Public Radio, or who made
selections from a menu of election specials on cable
and commercial television, not to mention anyone who took the
time to read any one of the many thoughtful
campaign-related books or special interest
publications, had access to more than enough reliable
information about the candidates to make an informed
decision in casting a vote.
Still there persists the perception and the reality
concerning voter tune out and turnoff. There is, we
are told by critics and experts, a disconnect between
politicians, the press and the public, and almost all
blame the out-of-touch politicians and an inaccurate,
sensation-seeking press for this unhappy affair of
state.
What does the public want?
When the politicians dealt with issues, the reporters
covered them. When the candidates indulged in cynical
slogans, personal attacks, deliberate distortions,
smears and lies, the press exposed and analyzed them.
The campaigners made fewer dumb mistakes, and there
were no big secrets or scandals that hadn't been
effectively been headed off before the main event.
Consequently, there were minimal excursions into
sideshow excess on the part of what appeared to be a
post-impeachment, more sober press. This time around,
journalism did not gun its mission with entertainment
values because the race itself was arresting. Even the
horserace came in second in the reporting, except on
election eve and day as is fully appropriate. For a
change, there was a clear and present choice of
reasonably qualified candidates, and the characters
were in full view in more debates than even an
underdog could want.
But then, after all was said and done, when the public
spoke, it was as the pros and cynics predicted. The
audience encouraged the personal attacks. It engaged
and grew as the fight grew meaner. It stood still for
dirty tricks and tactics. Negative ads paid off.
Blatant campaign corruption, like privately financed
attack ads targeting one opponent, was tolerated, even
rewarded. Money and entrenched power won the day,
although some believe that the best men won. Maybe
they did, but in the process, once again democracy
lost. So did civility and humanity.
What does the public want? In the 3-legged race of
democracy, in this post primary mortem, it seems a
perfect time for the experts to turn the spotlights of
their research and criticism on the accuser, that is,
the public itself.
Joan Konner is Professor and Dean Emerita of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. She is also Publisher Emerita of the Columbia Journalism Review.
She previously worked as a television reporter, writer, director and producer, first for NBC News and then PBS, creating more than 50 documentaries on a wide range of public issues. Her many awards include 12 Emmys from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences; Peabody Award (1980); duPont Award (1989); three American Bar Association Awards; and Outstanding Broadcast Journalism Educator, from the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (1996).
|
|
