homegame

Two Political Journalism (TV DIvision) Complaints

The Massachusetts Democratic gubernational primary yesterday was won by Deval Patrick by a far wider margin than anticipated. Among other things, Patrick was the candidate who spent by far the LEAST money on TV ads, because he had the least to spend.

One would think this might lead at least one reporter to conclude TV ads are not the be-all and end-all of political success. None did. Instead, they all jumped to a prediction, in some cases a gleeful one, that Patrick would now face a REAL challenge from Republican candidate Kerry Healey. Why? Healey had unlimited funds to spend on negative TV ads, and would start spending it right away.

Not one commentator countered by noting Patrick had triumphed in the most expensive primary in state history against two opponents who much more than he. Of course, had any talking head made that point, they'd be back covering firemen rescuing kittens in trees in Lunenberg for the 5 o' clock news.

Political advertising is a biennial windfall for TV stations, which are suffering at the bottom line like all other big media. Their stake in inflating the importance of such ads is obvious, and a blatant conflict of interest and if their business had ethics, would be a grievious violation of same.

And another thing. In the interests of suffering humanity, could there be a nationwide moratorium on panels with partisan ex-pols and spin doctors on election night? These bores do nothing but repeat boilerplate talking points in ways that make it clear why they became ex-pols in the first place. They're all the electoral equivalent of Sean Salisbury.

Grow a spine, TV. Ask your reporters what THEY think. Assuming they can.

posted by Michael Gee @ 9:47 AM