Stephen Vasciannie THE AMERICAN electronic media have not been impressive in its coverage of the forthcoming presidential elections. The race is tight, the issues are many and complex, and yet, the mainstream stations seem content to concentrate on sound bites ad nauseam: if an idea cannot be expressed in ten seconds or less, it is not likely to receive any attention, and when one candidate seeks to counter the perspectives of the other, there is very little chance that the stroke and counterstroke will be properly reported.
Similarly, although there is no shortage of programmes that purport to analyse the issues, the general level of analysis tends all too often to suffer from the sound bite problems.
'INFOTAINMENT'
There is, of course, a sense in which the mass electronic media reflects a dive to the lowest depths. When media executives examine the ratings, they may well find that the vast majority of Americans prefer 30 minutes of shouting and cajoling about the issues to one hour of deliberations a la the 'Lehrer Newshour' on PBS. Among other things, this may reflect the desire of the American market for politics as drama for persons with short attention spans: this market is not too keen on the step by step, meticulous development of an argument between contending forces; it is ready for the immediate cut and thrust, for exchanges that take no hostages, and for arguments that acknowledge no shades of grey. This approach may be entertaining, but it lowers the quality of public debate in the American polity, and creates the wrong impression about the American policy-making process.
The average non-American cable viewer is apt to come away from a week of American television with the view that superficiality prevails in all aspects of decision-making in the world's most powerful nation. Little could be further from the truth: on most important issues, there are serious policy groups, think tanks, and university academics giving time and effort to the formulation of nuanced positions, and promoting sophisticated analysis. But this level of sophistication is not offered by mass media, leading to the view (as I recently heard argued convincingly) that American voters are simple-minded in their approach to politics.
RACE
For the upcoming election, the mainstream American media have also devoted precious little time to issues of particular concern to minority groups in that country. In the first decade of the 21st century, the race problem in America still requires careful attention. To be sure, progress has been made since W.E.B. DuBois argued that questions concerning race would be the most fundamental matters for American public life. But obviously the agenda of racial equality remains unfinished. Against this background, it is profoundly disappointing that the media have paid so little attention to racial issues in the current electoral race.
In the three presidential debates, the issue of race came up fully for discussion on only one, or perhaps on two, occasions. This was in the context of affirmative action, and although both candidates offered viewpoints that fit standard party positions, there was no real engagement on the question of how to bring about further progress in race relations in America.
Finally, the American media have been disappointing in their approach to the central question in the election, namely, the war on terror or the war in Iraq (depending on your perspective). All indications are that this is
the defining issue for most Americans, and yet, in the last six months or so the mainline electronic media stations have not brought any new information to bear on the situation. Not only that, most of the analysts brought before the viewer week after week simply repeat their positions, and refuse to acknowledge the existence of counter-arguments. Just this Sunday, for instance, one pundit shouted in his allotted ten seconds that George Bush was responsible for the major terrorist attack on September 11. Even a moment's thought should demonstrate how shallow this perspective happens to be, and I rather suspect that the 'expert' does not really believe that his expressed view is sensible. But in 'infotainment', all the world's a stage, and this pundit has his bit part.
Stephen Vasciannie is professor of international law, head of the Department of Government, and a consultant in the attorney-general's chambers.
