Local Political Debates & Media Coverage
Update (10/23): As predicted, last night's debate was given prominent coverage this morning by the newspaper (front page story and photo) and the TV station (footage and commentary during the morning news show) which co-sponsored it.
I'm about to again reveal my ignorance of the Way Things Work in journalism, and no doubt be taken to task for sticking my nose into business that isn't mine, but I'm puzzled and concerned about how local media outlets are covering – or not covering, to be accurate – public events meant to educate the voting public.
The latest puzzle arose yesterday when all the candidates appeared at a meet-n-greet event, followed by a debate between the two mayoral candidates. If you read this morning's Midland Reporter Telegram, or watched the CBS affiliate's local news program, you might think that these events didn't actually occur, as neither gave any acknowledgment to them. BUT...tonight, there will be an actual debate between the same two candidates, televised and covered in exquisite detail by both of those outlets.
How to explain this? Uneducated skeptic that I am, I suspect it's because yesterday's events were sponsored by the local ABC affiliate, and thus they were deemed unworthy of coverage by the competition. (To be fair, the local ABC website has nothing about tonight's debate, as far as I can tell.)
I realize that the news game is a competitive one, and one-upsmanship is nothing new. However, I can't see how the public is served when media outlets completely ignore events designed to instruct and inform said public simply because they're sponsored by a competing outlet. That seems juvenile and short-sighted.
I'm especially disappointed in the newspaper's lack of coverage, as it seems to indicate a complete mind-meld with KOSA-TV. Any day now, I expect to see something in the MRT's banner indicating that it's been renamed the MCM-MRT. It's one thing for TV stations to compete head-to-head; quite another – again, in my uninformed opinion – for the newspaper to take sides with one of them.
Eric, as I recall, the NBC affiliate's news broadcast did promote the ABC affiliate's debate, in advance ..... I did not stay up late enough for Sunday's game-delayed news, to see if they reported on the story afterwards.
Posted by: Jeff at October 22, 2007 08:54 AMBeth, where do you get your cynicism? Oh, that's right. You've been reading the Gazette! ;-)
Jeff, I guess that means that KWES isn't sponsoring a debate.
Posted by: Eric at October 22, 2007 09:13 AMEric, I don't know ..... I'm out of that loop, now ..... but maybe, JUST MAYBE, they were doing what you suggest they do ..... get the word out to the public about an event designed to instruct and inform.
I'm not saying that IS the case, but it's worth considering ..... which, apparently, is a heck of a lot more than Beth would do.
Posted by: Jeff at October 22, 2007 09:23 AMbut maybe, JUST MAYBE, they were doing what you suggest they do
I don't doubt that's the case; I was just being my old cynical self. But my perception is that it seems to be easier to be considerate of the public's need to know when you aren't worrying about ratings.
Again, though, I'm just a naive outsider.
Posted by: Eric at October 22, 2007 09:28 AMJust to clarify...Beth dearly wishes that journalists could embody the idea of non-partisan and informational. She just happens to live where the Washington Post reigns supreme. She should also mention that she's not a journalist and never hopes to be one.
She should probably also stop referring to herself in the 3rd person.
Posted by: beth at October 22, 2007 09:37 AMJust so you know Eric ,KMID was charging $4000.00 per sponsor for it's "informative" debate. My business received a flier asking to "participate". Why should the other stations help KMID make money? And yes it's all about the ratings and money... isn't that that the American way. Why should TV stations and news papers held to different standard. I don't see the goverment giving them money to operate. It's not right but this is what our society has created.
Posted by: what? at October 23, 2007 10:14 AMYou did notice, didn't you, that I didn't exactly absolve KMID of any blame in this situation? (I should probably have noted that PermianBasin360.com doesn't have any mention of last night's debate, but I'm not really sure how that website relates to KMID.)
I've got no problem with sponsorships being offered to offset the expense of these things. I do have a problem with either (1) a media outlet charging another media outlet for the "privilege" of covering a legitimate news event, or (2) media outlets choosing not to cover legitimate news events because they don't want assist their competitors. I don't know whether the first situation came in to play in this case, but the second apparently did.
Unfortunately, no one involved with any of the actual media outlets involved has chosen to elaborate or clarify the situation so I can only speculate.
Again, it's certainly understandable and even desirable that media are allowed the opportunity to be profitable, without government intervention (and the strings that come along with it). I wouldn't have it any other way. The problem comes when competitive instincts get in the way of giving the public newsworthy information.
Posted by: Eric at October 23, 2007 10:27 AM
I think the root of your confusion is that you expect the news people to actually care about educating the voters rather than ratings, pushing their own political agenda, and how much they can charge for ads.
I think the last time journalists actually cared about educating people was in the era of Upton Sinclair - and even that's suspect.
Posted by: beth at October 22, 2007 07:59 AM