Meet the Press Amplifies Media Narratives
Philadelphia InquirerTribune-ReviewRick Santorum and Bob Casey met for the first of a series of Senate debates September 3, 2006 on Meet the Press. The lively forty minute exchange was punctuated by pointed questions from host Tim Russert framed with visualized quotations from news sources and clips from current and past-campaign political ads. The program is, of course, the embodiment of media intersecting with politics. Media asks the questions, utilizes the media as authoritative source framing questions advanced, and encapsulated the media narratives for "what matters." Russert controls the converstion with visual "gotcha."(Watch the program)
: US Senate, Rick Santorum, Bob Casey, media narrative, pre-debate media, spin, meet the press
p>
The Meet the Press debate was less about breaking new ground, a reasoned exchange, or debating solutions. Rather the debate was an amplification of candidate's and media's themes of strategy and character.
The debate's focus was almost verbatim a blueprint of major newspaper's frames for understanding the debate (e.g., Philadelphia Inquirer "Santorum, Casey: It's put-up time" , pitting the pit bull Santorum vs. the cautious Casey; the now "establishment" incumbent linked to President Bush vs. the perpetual albeit less effective challenger.
Examining the print press led up defined what the candidates had to do. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, naturally "deferring to the obligatory academic expert, predicts
"The matchup pits Santorum's style -- edgy, and sometimes confrontational -- against the soft-spoken, reserved Casey.
They'll both try to alter those images somewhat during the debate, said Jerry Shuster, professor of political communication at the University of Pittsburgh.
The Philadelphia Inquirer foreshadowed
For months insidershave been speculating on how the soft-spoken Casey will stack up against the fiery Santorum in a face-to- face challenge.
Bill Green, a political consultant in Pittsburgh, said he expected Santorum, an occasional firebrand, to concentrate on appearing calm and composed, while Casey, "always calm and composed," might try to demonstrate more fire.
Russert directly asks about character and their policy implications, with each candidate working to prove or disprove the media narratives; Santorum characteristically aggressive, yet polite, Casey careful but aggressively "fighting back". Is this obvious posturing the authentic candidates or a reflection of what they think they need to do to find advantage with or contradict the media's frames?
The Casey/Santorum debate is a case study of what happens when debate content and packaging are "of, by, and for" the media. Russet pursues with abandon, but in pursuit of what? Debates on this sort may be little more than summaries of campaign coverage, the "important" issues, and the candidate's dexterity in understanding the constraints.
Daily Kos tees off on the debate
