A recent N.Y. Times article titled "Even as the Candidates Make Nice, the TV Crew Hopes for a Fight" brought to my attention to a more self-interested element of the media I hadn't considered. Although debates are important events for the American public to watch, they certainly are not as interesting or popular as "Friends" or Monday night football. However, like other networks, channels like CNN need their advertising revenue and ratings too. So it made sense that David Bohrman, the Washington bureau chief for CNN, was in the back room during the L.A. debates trying to live up to the "fight night" anticipation that had built following the heated South Carolina debate. It seems as if the presidential hopefuls' strategy to "play nice" and repair their images diverged from the networks desire for "good television."
So that makes me wonder: are political debates for entertainment value or for information? Is it about getting ratings or creating an informed electorate? Although I have to admit that I enjoyed seeing how candidates responded to the provocative questions they were thrown, I kind of feel as if they were put there for entertainment value rather than for an actual debate. Or maybe seeing the pull-aways of celebs like Diane Keaton, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Steven Spielberg in the home of the Oscars just got me confused.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment