Mirror Image
The American gold standard for both political and journalistic excellence remains the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in the mid-1800s. Yet by current standards, they broke every rule in the books. They subjected their hearers to incredible amounts of detail and complexity, often for hours, and believed that the explanation of the issues was indeed central to their effectiveness. They were honest, frank, and used candor as a means of creating curiosity in their interests, despite the obvious risks involved. They took clear positions from which it would have been difficult to retreat. Above all, they behaved in a manner that said political leadership carried with it the obligation to clarify the issues for their hearers as opposed to just getting elected.
Media coverage of these debates mirrored the standard and excellence set by the debaters. Extra space was given in newspapers to carry the weight of the arguments and special supplements were produced to satisfy the greater curiosity of their readers prompted by the debates themselves. In almost every sense the country “expanded” in its understanding of the issues pressing upon it – realities that ultimately resulted in the American Civil War.
One can hardly expect modern media to dedicate so much space to issues of national interest, but what we have at present is a poor substitute, both in the political arena and the coverage emerging from it. Modern debates see the ground rules drawn up by the media, not by those elected and charged with passing policy and who are actually debating the importance of the issues themselves. Journalists and hosts “interrogate” politicians – a strange process that seems to elevate the importance of journalists while actually diminishing the stature of the politicians. Journalists ask primarily predictable questions while waiting impatiently for the even more predictable and partisan answers. Faced with a barrage of coverage, elected representatives learn full well that one slip-up could result in political havoc, and so they learn to spout inanities while appearing serious. God forbid that a politician would confess to ignorance (which they just might if the knew the questioners were going to dig down until they got their answer or that it wouldn’t become a story in itself), or that he or she would question the direction of their own party on the issue. The two things that matter most are the feigned expression of confidence in the response and that the other parties are trashed in the process.
And for the questioner? There must be the appearance of judicious investigation and a somber countenance meant to convey a sheer magnitude of the subject.
All this is sad. While there are clear exceptions, the “rule” appears to be a collaborative agreement between politicians and their questioners that “dumbing down” the entire confrontation is in both parties’ interests because, really, who has the time anymore to do the job right?
In Canada we have had the good fortune of witnessing the occasional poignant moment of national interest, earnestly debated and insightfully reported. The 1988 election debate on Free Trade was a clear example of this. Yet such moments are receding into a history that in some ways looks better than the present. The last few entries in this blog have been a sincere attempt to approach the problem in an open fashion and there have been responses from those in both the political and media camps expressing a certain agreement. But for us to find a better present and future, this debate must broaden until it becomes a force to be reckoned with and responded to effectively.