Clinton - Obama Feud a Media Creation?

I caught a CNN piece this morning about how things are getting down and dirty in the Democratic primary. But as I listened to their examples of the dirt, it seemed to me mostly minor. It seemed more likely that CNN is doing its best to keep up ratings by creating the impression of a nasty fight between the two.

Example 1:

Sen. Hillary Clinton says Barack Obama's camp is spreading false information about her positions.

Example 2:

Obama described Clinton's anger as "tactical" and defended his campaign.

These are hardly fighting words. But it appears that CNN and the others are doing their best to make it seem that the two are engaged in something that will keep viewers glued to their tvs.

OK, someone might point out that they also got into Carville's Judas statement about Richardson's endorsement of Obama. But Carville and Richardson aren't even the candidates.


CNN's website sets it up for you to see them fight. They have their story - Obama and Clinton fight it out - then they pull out the clips, no matter how weak, that support their story:

Taking a mocking swipe at the Illinois senator's campaign style, Clinton said people want actions and not words. Watch Clinton mock Obama »

Meanwhile, Obama railed on Clinton for supporting NAFTA when her husband was president. Watch the latest on the back-and-forth »

This is politics as reality tv. Actually that would be fine with me if they focused on what was important instead of just the how things affect the race.


It seems that Stanley Fish at the New York Times is thinking the same things I am

This denouncing and renouncing game is simply not serious. It is a media-staged theater, produced not in response to genuine concerns – no one thinks that Obama is unpatriotic or that Clinton is a racist or that McCain is a right-wing bigot – but in response to the needs of a news cycle. First you do the outrage (did you see what X said?), then you put the question to the candidate (do you hereby denounce and renounce?), then you have a debate on the answer (Did he go far enough? Has she shut her husband up?), and then you do endless polls that quickly become the basis of a new round. [emphasis mine]

Meanwhile, the things the candidates themselves are saying about really important matters – war, the economy, health care, the environment – are put on the back-burner until the side show is over, though the odds are that a new one will start up immediately.

Why? Controversy means more viewers and more viewers means higher advertising rates. Additionally, the longer Obama and Clinton fight for the nomination, the more money they will spend on political advertising.

Now, I'm pretty good using Google, but I could find precious little on media profits and the elections. From this November 2004 post on a website for direct response marketers:

In a presidential race that spent more money than any other election in history, exceeding $1.5 billion according to some experts, people were curious about who went home with bulging pockets after the last of the confetti was swept from election headquarters.
According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, media firms were among the big winners this election, in addition to lawyers and pollsters.

We see here, that it appears that the media report the news in a way (horse-race) that helps their ratings. But this also raises another question. How does advertising spending affect whether they even cover a story at all? If a newspaper, say, gets tons of money from a particular advertiser, will that cause the paper to not report news that negatively impacts that advertiser? Odds would seem pretty good they would find other important stories to write about.


So, what is legitimate and what isn't in debate? Basically, I would say that criticism of one's opponent's policy positions is legitimate. Personal attacks - questioning their loyalty, snide comments on their religion, gender, race, looks - should generally be off the table.

But separating out the personal from the professional isn't always that easy. It is legitimate to raise questions about one's experience and decision making abilities - anything directly related to the job is fair game. It's up to voters to watch the ads critically and reward those candidates who keep on task - campaigning on the issues, not trashing their opponents. Of course, the voters have to know the difference between the two.