There has been much justifiable concern about the increasingly shallow coverage of political campaigns. The “slogan and sound bite” approach can be attributed to news media representatives driven by constrictions of time and space and politicians driven by a desire to address campaign issues on the simplest level.
Clarence Page reported on another trend called “horse-race coverage” (“Sound bites and the public’s right to know,” Op-Ed, April 10), which focuses on winners and losers instead of policy issues. Everyone seems to agree that this kind of superficial reporting shortchanges voters who want to find out exactly what the competing candidates really plan to do if they are elected.
There is a parallel problem, however, that few seem to notice. The news media are also reducing citizens’ concerns to 30 second man-on-the- street “interviews” and simpleminded and/or biased “polls.” These shallow samplings of voter reaction are then being used by candidates and elected officials to set public policy. I believe that citizens’ messages to their representatives need to reflect more complete and realistic considerations of the needs and demands of the total society if those messages are to be used as a basis for developing national priorities.
What citizen, if asked, won’t say that his or her taxes are too high? What if that citizen were then asked, “What program or benefit that you count on should be cut or eliminated in order to lower taxes?” How many persons calling for term limits would, if asked, admit they don’t vote or that they voted for the person now in office. How many calling for “less government” want new laws for minimum health-insurance standards, control of violence on television or required educational standards?
“Sound-bite” thinking cannot possibly lead to intelligent policy development. I hope that the news media will begin to require more complete and thoughtful responses from both politicians and voters.
