The Political Campaign as Reality TV
Polite people should never discuss their politics, their money, or their religion said my grandmother many years ago. I do wonder what she would think of today’s media coverage of the upcoming presidential election. Appalled, I think! And appalled and embarrassed that I am writing this blog!
[Interesting sidebar: And, if you have been following political coverage--the many, many hours of political coverage--you may have heard also that Sarah Palin is slated to preside over a new reality court show to premiere next year. It is being put together by the TV executives who founded Judge Judy! OH, GOOD GRIEF!]
Okay, you may well disagree with my unsubstantiated analysis, but here it is!
- The 2016 presidential elections feel like a reality show! Donald Trump is the leader in this as he was already a reality TV star with his own show, The Apprentice, (and Trump is also getting a reality boost from second wife Marla Maples on Dancing with the Stars.)
- Fewer TV ads and more news shows with talking heads! I have quit watching the news on TV and simply check the top stories on Google and AOL. I do not want to listen to the pundits--liberal, conservative, moderate, socialist, or otherwise--tell me what I should think about Trump, Hillary, or Bernie anymore.
- The candidates are like “product placement” for their own campaign chests! A firm which tracks media spending, mediaQuant, issued the following information this week: Trump has spent about $10 million on TV ads, but has benefitted from nearly $2 BILLION (yes, BILLION) in free media coverage. Sounds a bit Kardashian to me!
- Hillary, on the other hand, has spent $28 million in paid ads and benefitted from about $765 million in free media attention. Is it about the hair? Or about who riles up the most people?
- Who is benefitting from all this? Personally, (old statistics geek that I am) I think the TV industry – i.e. the news media – has gotten the most “bang for their bucks” or ROI (return on investment). MSNBC news ratings has risen 20%, CNN’s up 170%, and good old conservative Fox is up 40%. (I REALLY, REALLY miss Jon Stewart!!) Obviously, there is a mutually beneficial relationship between candidates and news organizations during elections. The New Yorker’s (my favorite magazine) reporter wrote, way back in 1987, that viewers are going “for style over substance, entertainment over news.” (Even news reporters are better looking than they used to be. I respected Walter Cronkite but he was not a hot, sexy guy.)
- Politics appears to be increasingly about fame! A quick review of early presidents shows that having a noted name certainly helped win votes. Washington, Jackson, Taylor, Grant, Ike were military heroes. Jefferson had the Declaration of Independence on his bio. The Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes, known family names who were well-established in political circles. And Ronald Reagan – being a movie star didn’t hurt. And in 2016, the two most likely to go head to head are not only names, but magazine covers, and newsmakers in their own right without debates and campaigns to run.
- I am truly not excited about anybody. Bernie Sanders seems to be a cool, old guy. A pragmatic liberal who was an INDEPENDENT until last May. An activist in college (oh, my, the scandal of those 1960s), and a junior senator who caucuses with the Democrats. I am not sure just where his appeal comes from. Maybe those activist days.
- THE DONALD--along with his ubiquitous present, is the American voting public aware he does not always make good decisions: four bankruptcies and five failed business plans that I can think of off the top of my head: Trump University, Trump Magazine, Trump TV Network, Trump Vodka, and his own Trump Mortgage Company, along with a number of discrimination suits, not all of which are settled!