Beer and popcorn media coverage: suds and fluff

When the media falls over itself to cover the "beer and popcorn fallout", all it's really doing is covering itself -- and doing short- and long-term damage to democracy in Canada.

I just finished listening to an awful, but representative, CBC Radio report. It claimed that a Liberal strategist's comments that parents would spend their child-care stipend on beer and popcorn "overshadowed" the campaign today. Since only the media decides what counts during a day of campaigning, the report consisted of the media covering its coverage of yesterday's throw-away soundbite. The report, and countless others on the Radio, TV and in the papers that have appeared and will continue to appear, could instead have paid attention to the substance of today's policy announcements.

It's absurd for the media to claim to be covering a "campaign" when in substance it's only covering its reactions -- an incestuous feedback loop now referred to, by media pundits, as the all-important 'news cycle.' Talk about navel-gazing.

The reporter, Mr Armstrong, pointed out that Harper and Layton, while announcing other policy, also made beer-and-popcorn jibes. Fine. But Mr. Armstrong could have simply ignored these and discussed the announcements themselves by measuring their merits against their rhetoric. Constantly pursuing this same strategy -- ignoring petty jibes -- would revolutionize the way campaigns are received.

(Another example is the frequent pundit insight that the NDP's goal must be to get attention for itself and not get sidelined by the Liberal-Conservative jockeying ... even though it is these very pundits -- usually reporters, columnists or editors -- who are deciding to primarily cover only two national parties.)

This maddening form of media coverage damages our democracy short-term because it fails to serve its basic purpose in an election: make it easier for Canadian citizens to make informed choices when they vote. Today, Layton and Harper made serious policy announcements. If citizens were given any but the most cursory analysis of these plans, they would have a much easier time making a decision based on reasoned appraisal of the choices presented to them. Could a senior editor at a Canadian news outlet please explain how coverage of stupid booze sound bytes is more useful to voters than coverage of the policies voters are voting on?

So why does the media do this? Let's take the simplest, superficial reason. Many political reporters, because of a combination of laziness, stupidity, and time constraints, do not put in the hours and do not have the expertise to cover most political stories in depth. So instead, they cover what they do know: empty politicking.

Most political reporters in Canada, sadly, seem know more now about PR and political strategy than they do about what politicians in power actually do: create policies that have a concrete impact on the life of Canadians. By extension, come an election campaign, these people, camped out on campaign buses instead of libraries, cover the campaign itself. This is simple, flashy, and useless to voters. (Though it's great for strategy-obsessed political junkies, a miniscule minority.)

The long-term problem is that this approach fosters cynicism among politicians and voters, encouraging both to come to understand the sphere of politics as pure politicking instead of policy. Campaigns are tailored for TV news shows -- generally the worst offenders -- which then educate Canadians with cheap, simple-to-produce segments on political strategy that have no bearing on anything. Long-term, by encouraging the population to perceive politics as nothing more than bickering, the media does its share to reduce voter turnout and cheapen public debate.

The media then covers this disenchantment as a strange and tragic phenomenon when, once again, it is merely covering itself. This, the long-term change in the way we perceive politics because of the way politics is portrayed, is the 'news cycle' in the truest sense of the term.

This cycle, which is so obviously a distraction that more and more people have thrown up their hands and given up, does benefit some people. It immediately benefits pundits, political insiders, campaign and PR specialists, spin doctors, etc., whose professional expertise grows in value as democracy is denigrated. It also benefits others more generally, as it reinforces the political and economic status quo. The less serious political discussion becomes, the harder it is for serious change to take place.

Note that the mainstream media today is operated by corporations (with the exception of the CBC, whose management, we saw this fall, merely has a corporate culture) and that federal policy since 1984 has had a clear pro-business slant (we've had a Montreal businessman as Prime Minister or Finance Minister this whole time). For more on this, see the excellent work by Inaki Mondragon.

One of the leading contenders for leadership of the Liberal Party after Paul Martin is Frank McKenna, who, before becoming Canada's ambassador to the US, was the chairman of the board of CanWest Global -- the enormous media conglomerate famous for its centralized editorial vision and creeping censorship of its reporters.

This system has served its small number of beneficiaries far better than the vast group of Canadian citizens. So is it really such a surprise that no one but the NDP -- the ultimate political outsiders -- will stand up to take proportional representation seriously? Certainly, the 12-year-and-counting hegemony of a political party enjoying less than 50% support makes zero sense. But try telling that to a drunk Canadian whose ears are stuffed with popcorn!