If America can be said to have
violent cultures, relatively speaking and especially in countries such as Honduras
but also in some U.S. states such as Illinois (e.g., Rockford and south
Chicago), the media may simply be reflecting the wider culture in writing of political
debates by using words like fight and battle in place of argue
and debate. One effect is to exacerbate the problem, culturally
speaking. Another effect is to garner more attention, which in turn translates
into more revenue from selling advertisements. To the media, the latter counts
whereas the former does not; the media can blame the “heated rhetoric” of candidates
for office and elected officeholders for an uptick in political violence rather
than assume some of the responsibility. I submit that journalists are even more
at fault when they magnify the significance of a political event to the point
of being mistaken, widely missing the actual mark. The lack of any
follow-through in the field wherein one media outlet holds another accountable is
also a problem, especially when all of the major outlets are on the proverbial
bandwagon.
Before the Harris-Trump U.S.
presidential debate in 2024, CNN stated, “Harris’ joyful campaign will Tuesday
be hit by the blunt force of reality—a debate with Donald Trump—the most
menacing political foe of modern times.”[1]
Besides the word Tuesday being awkwardly placed before rather than just
after the words, be hit, the journalist’s certainty, as evinced in will
be instead of might be hit turned out to be wrong. After the debate,
Newsweek titled one of its articles on the debate, “’Trump Was So Bad’:
Fox News Voter Panel Declares Harris Debate Winner.”[2]
Twelve on the panel thought Harris had won, whereas only five thought that
Trump had done so. Time titled its debate analysis piece, “Trump Spent
the Debate Walking into Traps Harris Laid for Him.”[3]
It was Trump, rather than Harris, who refused after the debate to have
another debate. That says it all.
So, where was the headline, “CNN
Erred in Declaring Trump the Winner before the Debate”? Even with such a
headline somewhere in the public discourse, CNN would probably not smart enough
from the virtual slap to resist the temptation to be so certain
epistemologically in the future, and I suspect that too many viewers or readers
would not recalibrate how much credibility they give to definitive assertions
made by CNN in the future. Similarly, too many people tend to believe politicians
even with a reputation for being pathological liars as if speaking in front of
a microphone and camera mean that the person speaking must be declaring truths.
In short, the refusal of the
media companies to hold each other accountable when they get something very,
very wrong plus the gullibility of people reading or viewing politicians in
public discourse enable journalists (as well as the subterranean politicians)
to make outlandish claims, including those that are actually the journalists’
opinions being “reported” as if facts of reason. To claim that Harris’s
campaign will be hit is an opinion clothed in a stiff, grizzled suit of fact.
Alternatively, the journalist could have interviewed a political analyst, who
could have given an informed opinion. That would be reporting.
To be sure, debating who won a
debate is of questionable importance, really. In fact, with few exceptions—one being
the Biden-Trump debate in 2024 and another being the Kennedy-Nixon televised
debate in 1960—winning a presidential debate typically has not had much
impact on races. Costin Ciobanu, a political scientist at the University of
London, presented a study in which he found “that presidential debates have a
weak influence on vote choice . . . due to the importance of longer-term
structural variables.”[4]
The recession in 1991, for example, is generally recognized by political
scientists as having a strong impact on George H.W. Bush’s loss. A debate may
be momentarily titillating, but people tend to vote figuratively speaking with
their pocketbooks or wallets.
Even so, The Huffington Post’s
headline prior to the Harris-Trump debate was: “Tonight: As High Stakes As It
Gets.” Politico characterized the debate beforehand as “historic.” That
reporter, a national political correspondent, was so brazen that he admits that
there is “hype” ahead of the debate, but even that does not keep him from declaring
“just how momentous” the debate “will be” as if its HUGE significance were a
well-established fact of reason.[5]
The opinion and its underlying judgment were grossly incorrect; the race
between Harris and Trump remained a toss-up.
Why the preposterous hyperbole? Journalistic marketing. It is in the media’s financial (and personal) self-interest that the “must-see faceoff” be watched by as many viewers as possible.[6] Besides the questionable ethics of overselling a debate as a momentous, even historical event, and especially if fabrication is involved, lying in doing so, negative implications could be ripple through the electoral system. To the extent that debates are entertaining “tit for tats” rather than informative on policy positions and rationales (i.e., making the underlying values explicit and perhaps even debating them!), building a societal political norm wherein one is supposed to vote on the basis of who the voter thinks won the debate can undermine the credibility of popular sovereignty (i.e., the People’s power in voting) as the basis or bedrock of representative democracy in a republic. Additionally, given the obscenely long duration of modern presidential campaigns in the U.S., hyping each event along the way as if it will be decisive can exhaust voters and turn some off completely. Take for instance the Christmas season, which seems to get longer every year. By Christmas Day, I wouldn’t be surprised if many people are more than ready to turn off the Christmas music and go to a movie in ordinary time. Imagine if every weekend between Halloween and Christmas, people are told that it is a must-celebrate (and must shop) weekend. You don’t want to miss out on the Christmas spirit! By Christmas Eve, it might be time for a nap. By election day, it might be a time for gratitude that the thing is finally over.
1. Stephen Collinson, “Harris
Braces for the Most Critical Moment of her Political Career at Debate with
Trump,” CNN.com, September 10, 2024. Although the empirical study’s data
came from Europe, many American political analysts have reached the same
conclusion regarding the American presidency.
2. Joe
Edwards, “’Trump
Was So Bad’: Fox News Voter Panel Declares Harris Debate Winner,” Newsweek,
September 11, 2024.
3. Phillip Elliott, “Trump Spent the
Debate Walking into Traps Harris Laid for Him,” Time, September 10,
2024.
4. Costin Ciobanu, “Do
Presidential Debates Matter? Evidence from an Eastern European Context,”
Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, Oslo, 06-09 September, 2017.
5. Brakkton Booker, “It’s a Historic Debate Tonight. No One Really Wants to Talk
about It,” Politico, September 10, 2024.
6. Ibid.
