I wonder how blogs would fare if someone did a similar study of the political blogosphere?

That would be an interesting study. My guess is the blogs are now one of the principal places where issues are examined.

Unfortunately even the blogs fall into a horserace mentality as elections draw near.

I totally agree with Kevin. The media did even worse at giving candidates a chance to speak. In the 2000 election, Dave Letterman interviewed George Bush for a few minutes. That was the longest interview Bush had on any show.

Hey everyone--here is a fun challenge for the day. I'm going to post something stupid just for fun and lets see how long you can go without responding! It will be great fun! So, even if I post again saying something like "That first post wasn't me" don't reposnd, I'm just trying to trick you. I'll post lots-o tricks so just ignore me.

OK? GO!

I'm outta here for a long weekend -- have fun guys!

Drum:

..this means that these broadcasts dedicated an average of 18 seconds each to discussing actual issues..

But any more than that, and the local news stations would actually have to think of something to say instead of regurgitate what they are given...And also run the risk of possibly offending conservatives.

A radical idea: Ban all political and advocacy ads on TV and radio. We all know they provide no actual knowledge on any of the issues, just a lot of sound and fury (which, indeed, signifies nothing).

I have no clue what the Constitutional issues will be, but I do know that smoking ads have been banned for years, so there's precedent and it's legally feasible. Sure, it's an uphill battle and media companies will go nuclear to avoid loosing a cash cow. But it would make for a remarkable change in our democratic process, and it would be all good.

ex-liberal:

I hope you're not arguing that Bush is rarely interviewed because the media don't give him a "chance to speak."

A radical idea: Ban all political and advocacy ads on TV and radio.

Although I agree with you, I don't know if all political ads could be banned. I would suggest this for the ones that did make it to TV - no matter who produces the ad, the candidate the ad is running for must appear on-camera in the ad, saying he endorses the message contained within.

This idea would serve multiple purposes - it would make the 527s think long and hard about what they wanted to say in an ad, because if they were to go to the expense of producing an ad and the candidate deigned not to associate himself with the ad, it would be a money-loser because the ad could not be run.

It would force the candidates to take an up-or-down stance on what type of ad is considered fair game in a given race - because the ad would be tied to the candidate. I wonder if most candidates would want to be associated with the slime churned out by some advocacy groups? Probably not.

And if an issue ad could not be associated with a candidate, it would not be allowed to air. If an advocacy group feels strongly enough about an issue to produce an ad, let them find candidates willing to endorse that issue on-camera.

Taking this step would do a lot towards stopping the drive-by crap that makes up 11th hour political ads, and that would probably be a welcome change for most voters.

In the 2000 election, Dave Letterman interviewed George Bush for a few minutes. That was the longest interview Bush had on any show.

well, that's a fucking lie.

here's a 45 minute interview with Jim Lehrer.

"I wonder how blogs would fare if someone did a similar study of the political blogosphere?"

So, how are the USC Trojans going to do in their bowl game?
;)

Here's a long description of one campaign, including what sounds like local media wanting candidates to run ads before being featured in news coverage.

A related issue is that the MSM seems unable to ask tough questions, prefering to allow candidates to simply spout talking points. And, their reliance on smears instead of discussing the issues.

And, in other news: our Education Secretary lost Celebrity Jeopardy to an actor.

Nixon: I am not a crook.

GHWB: My son is an honest man.

The guy needs his dad to defend his honor!

The second time it's always a farce.

A radical idea: Ban all political and advocacy ads on TV and radio.

I've been in favor of this for the past 30 years. It's almost certainly unconstitutional, of course. But I think it'd be good for the country if it could be done.

Paid broadcast advertising is an excellent way to determine questions such as whether to buy Pepsi or Coke, or choose McDonald's or Burger King. (Correct answer: neither.) But for questions of any real significance, involving issues of any complexity, they are much worse than useless.

We'd be far better off without all the ads, not only because they polute politics with irrelevancy and meaningless attacks, but also because they suck up vast amounts of money and leave politicians in the pockets of the contributors who've enabled the whole fetid enterprise.

someone name of TLB>

And, in other news: our Education Secretary lost Celebrity Jeopardy to an actor. [hyperlink removed]

Must you whore yourself? Must you drag your junk out for all to see and flog your blog in public? If someone promises to send a nickel to your PayPal account, will you promise to stop whoring yourself out? Even the village bicycle got worn out from giving everyone a ride; you should check your tires, blog whore, and look for meaningful employment.

I wonder how blogs would fare if someone did a similar study of the political blogosphere?

And that's why I get so much of my political news from blogs these days....

I can't believe any of you are shocked by the results of this study, unless you haven't watched local TV news, especially here in the midwest where a lot of stations are in small towns (pop 100,000 and under).

What's really hilarious in my area is that the local daily paper--The State Journal Register (www.sj-r.com) devotes most campaign coverage to desciptions of the candidates' TV commercials!

In areas like this, the only way to learn a candidate's stand on any issue is to look up the web page. Thank God Al Gore invented the Internet.

Too bad we have to waste so much space explaining the basics to flat-earthers like Chickenhawk etc.

What's really hilarious in my area is that the local daily paper--The State Journal Register (www.sj-r.com) devotes most campaign coverage to desciptions of the candidates' TV commercials!

That's a point I just made over on my blog - that what passes for 'campaign coverage' is now just running each candidate's ads.

Not only does it distort the campaign that a given news broadcast is ostensibly 'covering,' it ends up reinforcing distortions and/or inaccuracies about an opponent's positions or record. In turn the crap in the ads becomes the perceived 'truth.'

It's another instance of news programming passing over real information for What Looks Good On TV, and it must be stopped somehow.

OT: Yeeeah, I'm hallucinating...

Analysis: Ballots favored Dems.. Sarasota's 'undervotes' were examined in 5 state races.

The group of nearly 18,000 voters that registered no choice in Sarasota's disputed congressional election solidly backed Democratic candidates in all five of Florida's statewide races, an Orlando Sentinel analysis of ballot data shows.

Among these voters, even the weakest Democrat -- agriculture-commissioner candidate Eric Copeland -- outpaced a much-better-known Republican incumbent by 551 votes.

The trend, which continues up the ticket to the race for governor and U.S. Senate, suggests that if votes were truly cast and lost -- as Democrat Christine Jennings maintains -- they were votes that likely cost her the congressional election.

About 15 percent of ballots cast on Sarasota's touch-screen machines registered no choice in the bitterly fought congressional race. That percentage was about six times greater than the undervote in the rest of the House district, which spreads into four other counties.

Since Election Day, dozens -- if not hundreds -- of voters have reported problems at the polls. Some say their vote for Jennings never registered after they touched her name. Others say they never saw the congressional race on the machine's screen.

I'd like to see election and voting reform be part of the next 100 hours of the Dem's agenda.

In Germany every party gets time slots assigned on public TV some three or four weeks before the election. No commercials allowed. The Parties are responsible for the content. Period.
PS.: And one week before the election is the last release of poll results.

Discuss issues and policy? That's not the way it works here in Texas. The republicans always have enough money to run the same ad over and over again until the voters start to believe. All the ad says is "My opponent is waaaay too liberal for Texas, vote for me." Works every time; best politicians money can buy.

My bad; here's the link for the article I quoted earlier.

keptsimple: I hope you're not arguing that Bush is rarely interviewed because the media don't give him a "chance to speak."

The media gave neither Bush nor Gore much of a chance to speak during the 2000 campaigh. The news shows did just what Kevin said, focusing mostly on the "inside baseball" aspects of the politicking. That way, even when Gore or Bush addressed important issues, the media news coverage focused on how (they imagined) the candidate's position would affect the politics.

I remember a front page NY Times article during the 2000 primary season. It said that Bush had released a detailed booklet of policy positions. But, the Times didn't tell its readers what Bush's positions were.

I think it would be nice if the major news shows would provide long one-on-one interviews, in which each Presidential candidate got a chance to speak directly to the public.

Jörgen in Germany

Sounds like a sensible system. Too bad it'd never past constitutional muster here. But I think I'd like it.

I think it would be nice if the major news shows would provide long one-on-one interviews

yeah, wouldn't that be nice

This study is highly debatable in that it failed to take into consideration morning, midday and weekend newscasts, political debates, and political affairs shows, among other broadcasts.

So if a station aired an hour-long commercial free debate, that didn't count toward this study.

The other side of this story can be found i an October 14th Broadcasting & Cable editoral:

http://tinyurl.com/yyvfqu

Sorry you have to copy & paste.