"Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I'm Yours" - MSNBC's Coverage
For those interested in the opening debate salvos by the Democrats and Republicans, MSNBC was home base. They dedicated an entire day of air time for each debate, featuring their on-air "talent" in the roles of reporters, newsmakers, questioners, and post-debate interviewers and analysts. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Joe Scarsborough, Tucker Carlson, and a score of others previewed, conducted, and critiqued both debates.
I listened to coverage much of the day, watched the debate, and am now following the spin on line at msnbc.com and via television commentary running in background. There is much to commend in MSNBC's coverage. The debate was lively, with humor, and candidates, even with short answers were able to promote their credentials, confront popular perceptions, and even on occasion offer a policy statement. Candidates and their campaigns were given substantial voice, and on occasion perspective outside of networks news/programming circle were allowed.
Judge and Jury below the fold . . .
: debate, debaters, Republican, primary debate, media coverage
Yet, there was a sense in which the production is, from a systems theory perspective, "
closed." I do not think this resulted in an inferior product as much as it raises questions about what perspectives were excluded. Refrains like Stevie Wonder's "
Signed, Sealed, Delivered" and the erroneous practice of being "
Judge and Jury" describe, in part, what goes on when a network owns a political debate and all its levers.
The process has some qualities credited to mythological alchemist Hermes Trismegistus who was said to possess the magic to seal treasure chests--protected by the hermetic seal. It would be unfair to characterize MSNBCs coverage as "hermetically sealed" as they received answers to the questions they asked that were not in their control. Yet the pre-debate expectations, questions posed to candidates, and who they interviewed were.
It struck me that during the buildup the reporters argued that candidates had to, for example, find ways to both praise and separate from Bush, answer questions the public's concerns (Faith, Are you a flip-flopper?), and massage positions outside the party's acceptable range (Choice, Stem-cell research). In the debate questions were asked that fulfilled the expectations set during the news cycles. And following the debate the candidates were rated on their ability to ask the questions.
It is only an impression, and would require more systematic examination; nonetheless my sense is that the pre-during-post debate frames were strikingly uniform. It could easily be that breaking up this monopoly and inviting other players into the process would result in similar uniformity, yet one has to wonder. It is equally plausible that viewers once imbued with the media narratives would then see the media's questions as reasonable and their assessment largely fair. But that characteristic simply fulfills one more quality of a closed system.
Are voters the loser? Are candidates unfairly pegged? Would other systems with more demarcation be superior? I don't know, but it does seem that MSNBC, however benevolent, was the Judge and Jury (& executioner) for the first two primary debates.
