The dangers of horse-race coverage

The political junkie in me is out and I need to be careful not to fall prey to the kind of prognosticating nonsense that plagues cable news. I’m watching Tucker Carlson (ugh) on MSNBC, following the end of Chris Matthews’ “Hardball,” and I’m struck by how little the folks on the tube are talking about what each of these candidates stand for and what the change might mean in policy terms.

Aside from a short nod to Iraq — the consensus on “Hardball,” accurate I think, is that a Democrtic win will mean little change because George Bush will still be in the White House — the talking heads are saying little about the future of the Bush tax cuts, Social Security, trade issues (aside from saying that the likely Democratic winners are cut from the “populist” cloth) , the Supreme Court, abortion, the separation of powers, the abuse of power by the White House, etc., etc., etc.

I can understand how this happens. Horse-race coverage requires little real work, aside from looking at polls, and allows reporters and talking heads to not delve into the deep end of the policy pool, which would require thoughtful discussion and a careful explanation of where the candidates stand.

But it does a disservice to voters, leaving the candidates through stylized and misleading television advertising to define themselves and their opponents.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie. View all posts by hankkalet