Public Eye
June 8, 2007 3:17 PM

Pop Up Politics

(Getty Images/Jamie Rector)
In today’s New York Times, columnist Paul Krugman takes the media to task for its coverage of Campaign 2008 thus far:
In Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate, Mitt Romney completely misrepresented how we ended up in Iraq. Later, Mike Huckabee mistakenly claimed that it was Ronald Reagan’s birthday.
Guess which remark The Washington Post identified as the “gaffe of the night?”

Folks, this is serious. If early campaign reporting is any guide, the bad media habits that helped install the worst president ever in the White House haven’t changed a bit … Back to the debate coverage: as far as I can tell, no major news organization did any fact-checking of either debate. And post-debate analyses tended to be horse-race stuff mingled with theater criticism: assessments not of what the candidates said, but of how they “came across.”
Even though it’s strident and partisan, Krugman has a point. How many people know about Fred Thompson’s inconsistent views about abortion, against the number of people who know he has a wife who may or not “Work the pole.” Quick show of hands: Anybody out there who doesn’t know which candidate has a costly coif?

As the crowded presidential field begins to thin, do most Americans have any idea of the candidates’ stands? I mean, beyond one word answers. Tancredo: Immigration. McCain: Surge. Giuliani: President of 9/11.

It’s easy to pick on the media for its surface-level coverage of the presidential candidates – see, I’m doing it now – but a little harder to try and think of an alternative. Think no further, dear readers: I’ve got a plan.

Cable network VH-1 has a program called Pop Up Video where it features music videos and then, intermittently, tosses up little factoids about the video or the band in thought-bubble-looking circles. You’ll be watching, say, “Heaven Is A Place On Earth” by my boyhood-crush Belinda Carlisle and you’ll find out >POP< Belinda’s real name and birthday or >POP< where the video was filmed.

You can tell where I’m going with this: Yes, it’s time for Pop Up Coverage of the candidates. Simply by incorporating this little gimmick, the bold news operation that tries it would immediately make the debates much more interesting and raise America’s knowledge of the candidates.

Picture it. You’ve got Bill Richardson talking about this issue or that, and as he goes along you’re finding out details about his career, basic stances and >POP< whether what his stance that night washes with his voting record or other public comments. (Care to tell us that story about being drafted by major league baseball again, Governor?)

Would it be difficult? Sure. Would it require a lot of research? Marginally more, but the news correspondents would likely be able to give the technical staff a quick run-down of the most vital issues. Might there be charges of bias from one side or the other? Count on it. But if the fake news staff of “The Daily Show” can attract viewers and positive press by double-checking candidate’s records and pronouncements, then why can’t the real news people do the same? It’s worth the effort. I’ll take real-time fact-checking over live-blogging anytime.

I can’t see any reason why this shouldn’t be considered. Like, right now. Not only would this liven up the debate watching experience, but it also might reel in the candidates’ rhetoric as well.
Tags:
Debate ,
technology ,
Pop Up Video ,
VH-1 ,
Pop Up News
Topics:
Media Issues
Add a Comment
by perryparks-2009 June 11, 2007 6:07 PM EDT
Matthew,

I think the pop-ups are a great idea for adding context, and potentially keeping viewers awake, during the debates. Real-time fact checking would require some astute footwork, but the results would be well worth the effort. Eventually candidates might go into public events with the understanding that they need to tell the truth or be called out immediately.

There may not be a lot of alternatives to horse-race election coverage, but they are simple enough. The hiring model is perhaps the clearest: Candidates are seeking a vitally important job, and voters form the hiring committee. To make the right decisions, voters need to know the candidates' qualifications, competencies, past performance and plans for handling the serious issues that confront us. Nobody seeking a real job could get away with ignoring an interviewer's question and simply repeating the same talking points over and over. Candidates shouldn't get away with it either.

For more ideas and examples of election coverage that matters, see my book, A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Making-Important-News-Interesting-Reporting/dp/1933338032" "Making Important News Interesting: Reporting Public Affairs in the 21st Century." /A
Reply to this comment
by Lennyohio June 11, 2007 5:14 PM EDT
Now come on. How about bias shown in the very questions asked. You(media) asked what misakes were made by the Bush adminstration. What are you calling mistakes Katrina? I still read about ***** being blown up. No, the media shows a very libreal bent in the coverage.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 June 10, 2007 8:31 AM EDT
to Memekiller,

The uranium document was a plant by an "Iraqi asset" used by the CIA to gather info. The rat was known by the CIA to be unreliable, a twice convicted drug user and seller. They said so in a memo to the white house two days before Bush's speech accusing Iraq of seeking yellowcake from Nigeria, advising bush that the info was probably bogus, Bush chose to ignore it, and lie anyway.

The WMD info was plagiarized from a decade old thesis by British-Indian college student, given to Bush by Tony Blair.

The sad part is that this news actually was in the media, but it was more like a back page whisper in the face of the onslaught of misinformation Bush and the press were feeding.

The even sadder part is that the press still ascribes truth to information long known to be false, and many people, who apparently don't read the back pages, still believe Al Qaeda was in Iraq at Saddam's invitation, that Iraq had WMDs, and that they tried to buy uranium from Nigeria.

Actually, knowing Bush, they probably were in Nigeria buying urang, which is Nigerian for sh*t...
Reply to this comment
by memekiller June 8, 2007 7:34 PM EDT
I don't think it's that hard. Elections ought not to be decided by the fact that Al Gore never said he invented the Internet, and never said he was the inspiration for Love Story. Nor should the fact that Kerry actually got shot at in Vietnam be topic one of conversation, while 60 Minutes tanked Ed Bradley's story on the manufacturing of evidence about Saddam's nuke program.

I remember when George Will wrote a column calling Gore a liar for claiming strong evidence for human induced climate change. As proof, he cited a poll he claimed showed a majority of climate scientists disagreed with Gore, when poll said the exact OPPOSITE. So, a columnist in a major newspaper lies to tar a candidate as a liar for telling the truth. No correction has ever run. To this day, Gore's reputation for exaggeration is based dishonest distortions by his opponents of factually true statements he made. Kerry lost because he appeared cowardly for how he was attacked for earning a Purple Heart, unlike the courageous fighter pilot who couldn't bother showing up to defend the coast of Texas after daddy pulled some strings. That's a problem.

One wonders if we would be in this mess if journalists spent as much time tracking down the forger of the uranium documents as they did Kerry's botched joke, or lamented the state of our discourse when Imus, Limbaugh and Gingrich perfected paid partisan rancour rather than whining about citizens pleading with them to do a better job.
Reply to this comment

About Public Eye

Description for Public Eye