The Free Market News Network reports that WMUR neglected to cover Ron Paul at his "Family Day" rally in Manchester, New Hampshire this past weekend. WMUR is a state-wide television operation, with headquarters in Manchester.
What struck me most about this was not the lack of coverage itself - infuriating and undemocratic - but the fact that WMUR is ... an ABC affiliate!
Just this past Friday, at the lecture I delivered to my "Intro to Communication and Media Studies" class at Fordham University (we'll have the video up on YouTube soon), I detailed a series of outrageous ABC misreportings of Ron Paul since May - ranging from leaving him out of poll results to using photography to make his supporters seem far fewer at a rally in Iowa than they in fact were. But I concluded, in an effort to be fair, that ABC seems to have been improving in the accuracy of its reporting lately, with Fox making the worst transgressions.
But here we are, once again, with a national ABC television affiliate apparently up to the same old business. If the Free Market News story is correct - and it's been up online all day with no opposing comments offered - then ABC is continuing to dig itself into a hole it may never get out of.
Because, whatever happens in this election, the shameful performance of ABC News at so many junctures - regarding mostly Ron Paul, but also, at least once, Dennis Kucinich - will not be forgotten. Indeed, I expect it will be a section in many a textbook about media and politics. I know I certainly will be putting something about this in my next edition of The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution.
See reviews of the most recent edition of The Soft Edge.
5 comments:
I sent WMUR NH TV a letter and more people should too.
I am also going to warn my local abc affliate of possible picketing by Ron Paul supporters.... If they continue this corrupt media blackout.
Thanks for commenting on this, Dr. Levinson.
I'm completely in agreement with your description of this behavior as shameful, but I'd cast it as worse than that. This behavior is foolhardy and risky, because, regardless of Ron Paul's showing in the upcoming primaries, reporting on a significantly large gathering of support could not be detrimental to WMUR's reputation. If, however, Ron Paul does well, or gets the nomination, this will highlight the loss of influence of network news.
At this point, with news disseminated through so many channels, the clout an outlet has is directly tied to the appearance of influence they retain. Once that appearance goes, so will some of their real influence, as viewers will no longer trust them, and look elsewhere.
No one would fault WMUR for covering this event, but they may be hurt because they did not.
The real journalistic malpractice this year is being perpetrated by the Associated Press. They seem to cover candidates in proportion to the random telephone survey results, when a far better metric is available: which candidates do people want to read about, as measured by Google searches and actual article visit stats.
Ron Paul is the most searched for candidate, and articles featuring him repeatedly rank in the weekly top 10 for local news sites readership. So why does the AP not write about him more often? Don't their affiliates want to attract readers?
The profit motive aside, isn't the Republican candidate drawing the biggest crowds worth assigning a full time reporter to? Isn't the fact that the candidate with the biggest crowds is at 3% in the polls a remarkable story in itself?
One of the important questions to consider going forward, for anyone like Paul, is "How do we marginalize the importance of the mass media in political campaigning?"
Think about it. The practice of marginalizing candidates based on selective perception in the mass media system virtually eliminates certain players before they've had a chance to engage in meaningful dialogue with America. In the age of democratic internet communication, isn't it possible to raise as much money and distribute as much campaign material via the net as it is by TV?
You have to be very very crafty to make it happen, but you can essentially render TV obsolete if you run an efficiently targeted campaign. Howard Dean would have had no shot if he hadn't developed his fund raising machine over the net. TV ended up killing him, but he also didn't understand the power of YouTube or Vlogging at the time. In fact, I think it's safe to say we are all beginning to understand the power of our resources to replace TV as the main source of information and exposure in campaigning.
The trick is, actually, not to eliminate TV from your strategy, but to play TV like a puppet. TV is nothing if not a mirror of the internet in 2007. Market research can sometimes be boiled down to what stories got the most hits on CNN.com during the day. Knowing that, a smart candidate can use the net to weave the most compelling story for the American public and thereby demonstrate that he or she is in fact "good TV". Without banging his or her head on the wall to get on "the boob tube" it is possible to force the issue by more subtle means.
What all this requires is a highly efficient and dynamic internet strategy and coordinated grassroots network to support it. Create news. Run the best campaign ads on-line over a blog network, YouTube, and other free media. Model your program after MoveOn.org by using this media to generate buzz in people's inboxes and in "public internet space". Encourage your people on the ground to throw "health care parties", or "Iraq meet ups", or gatherings to demonstrate solidarity on whatever issue you want to put up front.
To make a long story short, there are some models of non-traditional campaigning yet to be fully realized. It will take a campaign particularly attuned to the habits of the internet world to do it, but the potential is far more vast than what's been explored so far. I recommend Paul start his own Internet TV Network called "Paul TV" which webcasts 24 hours a day. Essentially, free press for his appearances, rallies, and targeted segments on his issues. He doesn't have to appear at all sometimes, with his supporters taking the lead in the segments.
Hey Mike-
I agree with you on all points but one. You refer to television as a mirror that reflects internet top stories.
If that were the case Ron Paul would already be the most covered R candidate. At best media is a fun house mirror, misconstruing the actual image to present a recognizable, but inaccurate representation of truth.
I agree that the online campaign is going to be more crucial now then ever and I think he has mastered that art for this election better than anyone else.
Just as an aside- the ONLY political supporters I've seen at any grassroots/political action events I attend have been Ron Paul supporters- and they were more than just showing strong attendance. They were pushing hard for RP support with a large amount of signage, t-shirts, email lists, pins, you name it. These people were a mini-campaign machine all by themselves. If they are an accurate representation of all his supporters- I think the other candidates are in for a suprise.
ps- see you in class.
mike
Post a Comment