 |
|
Dialogues@RU is published
annually
by the
Writing Program at
Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey
Volume 4
Fall 2005
Polemical Hacks, Bastardized Gonzo,
and the Death Of Democracy - Page 4
By Eric Kaufmann
When examined further, however, it is clear that both types have the same effect: "It's considered wrong to call your opponent 'un-Christian,' but acceptable to call yourself 'the Christian candidate in this election'" (Mayer 455). Such a viewpoint ignores the benefits of negative campaigning. The need for new proposals "becomes clear only when a candidate puts them in the context of present problems ¾ only, that is to say, when a candidate 'goes negative'" (Mayer 441). It is doubtful that any candidate would voluntarily admit to proposing bad policy. Negative campaigning keeps candidates honest, for if the opposition never pointed out inaccuracies, candidates could make any statement at all, no matter how inaccurate, false, or unrealistic, without fear of reprisal.
Character, another aspect of campaigning typically associated with negative imagery, can, as with negative appeals, bring about positive and informative results. Candidate behavior can be more relevant to a campaign than policy when one considers the number of initiatives carried out that were never raised during the campaign. In addition, a politician's word is not law. Proposals must go through a complex bureaucracy before they are implemented. For this reason, candidates must be "good managers and political strategists, meet frequently with other elected officials, lead public opinion, persuade the recalcitrant, and attract and retain talented staff. And all of these are matters of ability, temperament, and character" (Mayer 445). In fact, polls show that voters are highly concerned with personal qualities, for good reason. Thus campaigning, when done honestly, serves to inform voters, not detract from the political process, by providing information that would otherwise not come to light. Today, in spite of the consistently negative view emanating from the news, and the all-time-low approval ratings of government, empirical evidence indicates that most candidates do keep their campaign pledges, as it is electorally sound to do so (Patterson 19).
As a political information source, however, the media has failed, and exerts and anomic effect on democracy. Reporters are unable to accurately inform the public of policy consequences (as they themselves have no specialized knowledge in the area on which to gauge outcomes), analyze events for historical patterns and context (lacking knowledge, they treat events as isolated occurrences), or explain how political facts and stances vary based on certain conditions (instead waiting to pounce on candidates who change opinions, not recognizing the compromise inherent in the political process) (Graber 265, Roberts and Eksterowicz 67). Having achieved commercial success with the present format, media outlets are loath to offer lengthy, complex, and serious discussions of politics. Case studies and panel interviews treat events as discrete points within short time frames (an election cycle, a politician's term, the fiscal year), and avoid long-term analysis based on a continuum of events and policy. Not only is the press uninformative, it is also unresponsive, maintaining no contact with any form of public opinion. Polls indicate that audiences overwhelmingly have a "dislike of hype, sensationalism, and faulty news judgments" (Graber 268). Yet because of the consolidation in ownership and the homogenization of content, the press offers no alternative to its restrictive framing of public discourse.
The cause behind the abundance of persuasion and the lack of public discourse in society is the development of attitudes in the media that are excessively cynical towards politics. This came about due to a shift in journalism in the 1960s. The shortcomings of government and politicians at the time spurred a change in reporting, as journalists began to cover news critically, no longer taking official statements at face value. This approach served the public interest, and "into the early 1970s, this new attitude was tempered by a prudent regard for the facts. The press hounded Johnson and Nixon on Vietnam and Watergate, but only as credible allegations and damning evidence came increasingly to light" (Patterson 18). Realizing that negative news sells, however, journalism ceased to be reporting, and became attack journalism, "rooted in controversy and superficial condemnation" (Patterson 18).