Pop Up Politics
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.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?
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."
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 >POPPOP
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 >POPstory 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.