Peepshow: The Oversensationalism of a Non-Issue

EENR bloggers are discussing today whether or not JRE's latest admission to an extramarital affair, as well as John McCain's own admission years ago are issues for voters. The diary post at EENR was posited more like either a Lou Dobbs (CNN) question (as was the diary about Immigration a couple of weeks ago)--or could have played into the pundit football that Shannity and Colmes discussed last night on Fixed Noise Network. Neither diary provided any research from surveys, polls, articles etc, to have neither a decent debate--just as Lou Dobbs nor the Shouting Newsbusters do, but instead rely on conjecture and not inviting political communications scholars to comment on this issue. Instead, the EENR diary is more akin to the traditional media in the sense after the Senate acquitted Bill Clinton in 1999, a Pew Survey revealed that the public believed that "news organizations were driving controversies" rather than reporting the news by covering the personal and ethical behavior of public figures. To me, it is a public airing of Edwards’s bloggers and supporters to talk about how they feel about the travesty rather than discussing a complex issue.

My title is taken a little from a book I just picked up today entitled Peepshow: Media and Politics in an Age of Scandal, written by well known experts in the political communications field. I will be borrowing heavily from that work, articles, and other comments in books.

If I understood the question, which I am rephrasing: is a politician's candidate's extramarital affair an issue in itself to voters, I cannot conclude that it is; the real issue is should the media make it an issue? They do so for various reasons. An issue has too many layers to be boiled down into a simple question.

First, Pew Research on People and the Press did a poll last year about politicians and their indiscretions in February 2007 when they were looking at all of the candidates ab0ut personal character. The majority of those polled, especially those who identify themselves as Democrats, do not think an extramarital affair makes a different in casting their vote for president. This mirrors the survey I mentioned earlier. The media's substance coverage of the 1988-2004 presidential elections has been steadily declining for some of the networks. CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News were the worst, according to Stephen Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter in their book, The Nightly News Nightmare: Television Coverage of the Presidential Elections, 1988-2004, published last year. In that same work, the authors found that the negative tone, especially from Fox News, was around 60%, with the three other networks ranged from 58-49% in 2004.

What does matter though about extra-marital affairs involving politicians, according to the authors of Peepshow, is the context and timing? From the Guardian:

Such circumstances matter, experts say, and not only the politician's voter base but also his or her image and how far away the next election is.

"Much has to do with the politician and how they react to the story," says Kyle Kreider, professor of political science at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. "If the politician appears callous or indifferent to the 'sin,' the public usually does not give the politician a pass. However, if the politician [admits] to it and appears remorseful, the public now is quick to forgive."

Source: The Guardian, 2007.

Another layer in the issue mix is if the politician is at celebrity status or very high profile. In the case of John Edwards, who was covered very favorably in 2004, this became the case as he aligned himself with celebrities himself in the last election. Why do politicians do this? Darrell West at Brown University posits this observation:

In this situation, it is difficult for politicians to raise money and build public support. They simply do not have the credibility necessary for political persuasion. It no longer is enough for them to make particular claims. They need to hitch themselves to people who have higher credibility than they themselves do.

For this reason, politicians draw on sources from outside the political realm. They need individuals who are considered more trustworthy and less partisan, and who have high credibility with the general public.

Athletes are one example of high credibility sources that politicians love to draw on as are popular singers, actors, and musicians. Because they come from outside the political world, these celebrities represent a valuable resource for politicians. Their fame attracts press coverage and campaign contributors, and their accomplishments from outside the political world allow politicians to piggyback on their high credibility with voters.

Source: Celebrity Culture in America, downloaded from this site: Inside Politics.

Of course though, Edwards wasn't as favorably covered this time around since he was considered to be "angry" and touting issues no one wanted to hear about, which is the growing disconnect between government and the pocketbooks of the working poor and the sliding middle class.

Since last Friday, Edwards has had more negative publicity than any publicity from the cable networks? Why? Larry Sabato, one of the authors of Peepshow noted in 1991 that competitive pressures have more to do with the media's reporting of salacious stories than predictable:

Scandal and sex do indeed sell well-a great deal better than dispassionate policy issues. Some of "Nightline's" highest ratings were achieved for shows featuring Jim and Tammy Baaker. The same could be said the media's handling of Donna Rice in Gary Hart's travails..."

Sources: I noticed the above quote first in Images, Scandals and Communication Strategies of the Clinton Presidency, 2003, edited by Robert Denton and Rachel Holloway; quote by Sabato is from his 1991 Feeding Frenzy: How Attack Journalism Has Transformed American Politics.

Fast forward to the past week: Cable Networks need ratings to boost the potential for ad revenues, which are slow at this time of year when Obama is on vacation and NBC has the lock on viewership for the Olympics. Edwards' extramarital affair has been over sensationalized--both by the Networks, the tabloids, and the bloggers.

As Sabato, Stencil, and Lichter (Sabato and Lichter the more prolific in research) concluded from their Peep Show Chapter on "The Verdict":

The public itself has little time or interest in modern politics. By focusing so much attention on the personal lives of public servants, the press squanders what little chance it has to enage the electorate, to remind voters about the connections between public policy and their own personal lives....If the coverage of personal politics dominates the news, then the public learns less about what matters that our to be foremost in their minds when they vote. The less informed voters are when they woalk into their polling places, the great the chance they will elect people who should not be in public office. The election of a real political cad or soundrel would be the most tragic and ironic consequence of a media process that is intended to protect the public from such a decision.

Peepshow, p98-99.

When I learned the EENR diary was going up, I was very unhappy about it, especially as more allegations were being flung at John and Elizabeth Edwards as it was last night. I respect their privacy and what I think about it privately is something that I'm choosing not to share on this blog at present; it is between me and my friends. If I want to engage in a Lou Dobbs, Dan Abrams, Chris Matthews, or David Gregory panel--in other words--the cable networks who are covering this ad nausea while NBC is enjoying the ratings from the Olympics, and Obama is on vacation--I can watch them beat up John and Elizabeth instead. But I probably won't learn anything more from those shows or from other bloggers' opinions than I would surfing the Net or getting more information from my friends via e-mail.

EENR blog has prided itself in being more about the issues than about personalities.

But not today.

Update: Speaking of oversensationalism, I heard Rush Limbaugh made some nasty, petty comments about Elizabeth Edwards. Keith Olbermann had a word or two to say about that. Thank you, Keith. (h/t Poligirl)

MSM and Kos Are Overlooking Important Issues in Lieu of Personalities & $$

On Sunday, EENR blogger Edgery wrote about the Vets and how our country isn't doing its job to look after them and their families once they get back. John Edwards had a plan in taking more steps to ensure they and their families receive the care they need, and the plan was the centerpiece of Edgery's post. When this diary was posted at the Daily Kos, it was received in a lukewarm fashion or considered disingenuous. Thus, when David Mizner wrote about Kos, I empathized with him and that's why I posted his comments from HuffPo yesterday.

Apparently, John Edwards wasn't through speaking out for the vets. In a letter to the Editor at the NYT (which also isn't as focused on the issues between the remaining candidates at the moment), he penned:

In “For Wounded Veterans and Their Families, a Journey Without Maps” (Editorial Observer, March 24), Lawrence Downes missed an important opportunity to explain why both the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs are unprepared to care for the service members who have been hurt in the Iraq war.

The reason is that the frequently reported number of the wounded in action (29,320 as of March 1) does not include everyone who’s been hurt.

The complete number of nonfatal casualties in Iraq is 60,645. Most assume the wounded number includes all, but it does not. It leaves out another 8,273 injured and 23,052 who became ill and required medical air transport from the war zone. The Department of Defense releases two reports: one with the weekly numbers of those wounded and killed, and then another monthly report with the complete numbers. After five years, it is time for respected news organizations to use the complete number.

The public needs this information so that we can better prepare for the care of all of our veterans from this war and others. The struggle for them and their families your article addressed is happening all across this country. Nearly 300,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have already sought care from the V.A.

The system is broken. That is why so many veterans are still fighting for the care they earned. That is why their families struggle with paperwork and months of delay. And that is why 154,000 veterans sleep on grates or under bridges every night.

We have tens of thousands set to come home, and we aren’t prepared. Every day we should honor the more than 4,000 lives lost: every suicide, bullet or serious accident.

And every day we should honor those who have been hurt. That number is 60,645 and rising.

John Edwards
Chapel Hill, N.C., March 31, 2008

John's letter proves my point about Daily Kos or MSM: it took over a week to get this printed. Obviously, they aren't taking the situation very seriously.

Bye-Bye Tucker

And don't let the door hit you too hard on the way out.

(h/t Rod Sterling, Daily Kos)

From Fair Media Now.

Quick Post from JRE Booth

I cannot believe all of the buzz at the John Edwards booth. There are a couple of us blogging right now, and the media is filming us; NBC Nightly News crew is right at my feet. I don't know if the footage will make it, but it's nice that they are paying attention to bloggers, especially those who blog for John Edwards.

Tools Deserve Sisyphus' Fate for Bashing Gays

As BW readers have seen every where, including the Media Matters sidebar on this site, the Coultergeist has a potty mouth of her own.

But instead of apologizing, and in which GOP pols even had to say her comments about gays was wrong, the NYT printed an article that read (albeit I'm not crazy about the reporter, but it's better than no article at all):

Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

On her site, in which she calls herself, Chairman Ann (whatever that means, chairman of her chair I guess), her comment is, " I'm so ashamed, I cannot stop laughing."


Meantime, John Edwards issued the following statement this afternoon:

Ann Coulter's use of an anti-gay slur yesterday was un-American and indefensible. In America, we strive for equality and embrace diversity. The kind of hateful language she used has no place in political debate or our society at large.

I believe it is our moral responsibility to speak out against that kind of bigotry and prejudice every time we encounter it.

Elizabeth Edwards said it best, and perhaps it is because she has been the target of hate herself in the last campaign, with these words:

When Miss Coulter spoke about John at the conservative convention in Washington yesterday, she used a word that she intended as a nasty and derogatory suggestion. John and I have long ago shrugged off the vile words of this person. When she made a joke about the exact moment of death of Charlie Dean (Howard's brother and a schoolmate of mine), and when she attacked the courageous 9-11 widows, she told you all you need to know about what she is made of: her compassion -- or lack thereof. Now we need to find out about you.

Although her words did not hurt us, they may have hurt some in the gay community. We are all sick and tired of anyone supporting or applauding or introducing hate words into the national dialogue, tired of people thinking that words that cause others pain are fair game. And we are sick and tired of people like Miss Coulter thinking that her use of loaded words about the homosexual community in this country is remotely humorous or appropriate.

John gave a graduation speech at NC State several years ago, and in it he said that none of us can stand by when words of bigotry and division are used. It is only when the rest of us stand up and say that this is not acceptable that we drum out the hate-mongers from amongst us. The first reaction in the room at the conservative convention yesterday was a gasp -- a horrified gasp, even -- but it did not last. In a few seconds, those who were not horrified started clapping and drowned out the gasps.

Now it is our turn to drown out the hate. Find a way -- whether it is contribution here that sends a message to Miss Coulter and those who applauded her (which, of course, I prefer) or whether it is a statement on this blog or others or all of the above -- but please find a way not to sit silent in acceptance. It doesn't change until we say we will not be silent when this happens.

Silence..is betrayal.

I hope John Edwards includes this incident in his speech tomorrow at Berkeley in commemorating the march at Selma and civil rights.

Family Values pic of GOP candidate Mitt, Romney, and his Ann supporters (his wife and Coulter) at CPAC yesterday

(photo at CPAC courtesy of Talking Points Memo)




It was said in mythology that King Sisyphus was punished by Zeus for his hubris. So should Coulter (who is the Queen of the Mean Kingdom), the GOP, MSM, and anyone who is silent in not denouncing hate talk against gays, and for foul comments about John Edwards.