Jarvis recently wrote that "Politics is the opiate of journalism and it's time to go to rehab." Excerpt:
The attention given to the conventions and campaigns is symptomatic of a worse journalistic disease: we over-cover politics and under-cover the actions of our governments. We over-cover politicians and under-cover the lives and needs of citizens. . . .
Four years ago, the Poynter Institute's Al Tompkins asked PBS News anchor Jim Lehrer "why, in these days of few surprises at national conventions, it is still worthwhile to cover them." Lehrer's answer might be summed up in this paragraph from his response:
The political conventions are among the few "shared" national political events left. The others are the debates. Journalism organizations that say the conventions are not important are essentially saying the election of a president is not important. We are not in the business of making events, only in covering them.
More people watched the speeches by presidential candidates Obama and McCain, and vice presidential candidate Palin, than the finale of American Idol. Those numbers were swelled by low-information voters of both parties. The conventions told them who to cheer for, but many don't know enough about the candidates' policies to cast an informed vote.
The second of the "few 'shared' national political events" Jim Lehrer mentioned is the debates. It is crucial that the moderators elevate their game above the will you pledge tonight silliness that diminished the primary debates. If they don't, the candidates should assert themselves to make their positions clear.
Obama and McCain each have website pages that address many important issues. But, television is likely to guide more voters than the internet. Either way, I agree with Jeff Jarvis that journalists should invest more time covering the actions of our government. That would be one step towards making this the last most critical presidential election of our lifetime.
