News coverage of Republican primaries: idiotic
The news coverage of the Republican primaries is idiotic. There narrative that’s being presented is that there is a wild struggle for the lead. The story is told this way because news presents data rather than insights, and, while there’s a lot of new data (unveilings of potential scandals, gaffes, resurgences) these data don’t have any effect on the outcome of the primaries. There’s a good discussion of how flawed news coverage of the Iowa caucuses in this Newshour discussion; skip down to the part with Smith and Stein. Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University:
Let me draw a very important distinction between Iowa, a place I lived very happily for six years and for whose people I have great affection, and the over-reported, overanalyzed, over-interpreted Kabuki Theater that is the—quote—”Iowa caucus.”
Jeffrey Brown (Newshour): Why is it Kabuki Theater?
Smith: Well, gosh, we have the Ames straw poll, which we’re told is the caucus before the caucus. And we’re supposed to pay a lot of attention to the Ames straw poll. And guess what? Michele Bachmann won the poll, and her campaign, it’s been downhill ever since.
A lot of this is the media. A lot of this is the amount of money that has poured into the state…
This “Kabuki Theater” doesn’t tell two stories. First, people run in primaries (and caucuses) for reasons other than trying to become president. Some people like having attention, some want to sell a political agenda, and some are planning on running in 2016 and want to establish name recognition now. My assessment of the field:
Attention seekers:
- Donald Trump
- Michele Bachmann
- Rick Santorum
- Herman Cain
- Newt Gingrich
Selling political agenda:
- Ron Paul
- Newt Gingrich
Possible 2016 candidates:
- Jon Huntsman
- Rick Perry
- Newt Gingrich
The other nuance that is missed is that primary voters vote for reasons other than selecting the next president. In the Newshour piece, Smith notes,
But I will tell you there is one more reason to look askance at all of this. And that is, there is no shortage of people in the media and some in Iowa who will be perfectly prepared on Wednesday morning to say that the whole caucus was irrelevant if Ron Paul wins.
And Jeff Stein of the State Historical Society of Iowa concurs,
I think that, if Ron Paul wins, there’s going to be the temptation nationally to just—just dismiss it. And I think that’s misreading the reason for the voting. And I don’t think it’s anger. I think it’s dissatisfaction with how things are running. And, to a very large degree, it’s a protest vote.
I would be happy to get coverage that assumes that Romney will win the candidacy, but that attempts something beyond guessing which two-hundred pounds of meat in a suit is going to sit in a white building in 13 months. Insightful coverage synthesizes, not immediate data, but the unfolding knowledge of candidates’ views and character. For example, how is Ron Paul changing people’s minds by challenging their assumptions? Will Huntsman, Perry, or Gingrich be viable in 2016? In particular, what views do Huntsman and Gingrich hold now that are unpopular given the present economic conditions but that may become more acceptable to the general public in four years? I am bored by unambitious news coverage.
