Elisabeth Kwak-Hefferan: Political coverage that leaves out the issues

You know, there are a lot of perfectly valid reasons to vote, or not to vote, for a candidate. A scream is not one of them. If you're an avid follower of the pomp and pageantry we call the Democratic primary season (or if you watch late-night TV), you saw presidential hopeful Howard Dean give a now-infamous squeal at the end of his crowd-rousing, troop-rallying concession speech in Iowa. Not really the stuff of great drama -- but the news media pounced on it, the comedians ate it up, and that scream became "the gaffe" of the year.

Ridiculous. And sadly, emblematic of the coverage of the 2004 Democratic campaign.

It's an important time on the political landscape, and the primaries and caucuses now in full swing certainly deserve attention. C'mon, we're picking a presidential candidate here -- hopefully, American citizens are giving the process more than a passing glance as they flip between The Bachelorette and the scrambled porn channel. But instead of presenting us with serious, responsible issue pieces, instead of spelling out the policy stances and beliefs of each hopeful, we're deluged with pointless coverage of inane details no self-respecting citizen should bother to acknowledge.

This goes beyond the usual media obsession with the so-called horse race and polling. It even goes beyond issues that arguably, maybe, have an actual impact on a candidate's fitness for office. Sure, rumors of womanizing or past instances of drunk driving could possibly reflect on a politician's character, but the journalism of today does not stop there. Oh no, we're talking deep analysis of the sweater Wesley Clark chose to wear one day in Iowa. Or profiles on each candidate's children. Or earnest inquiries into whether or not John Kerry gets Botox injections.

It gets worse. Perhaps this sort of reporting could be passed off as human interest journalism if it accompanied discussion on what really matters, i.e., the economy, national security, health care and all the other undeniably important national concerns. Perhaps it could even be enjoyed as a kind of civic dessert with our political meat and potatoes. But it's not -- it's the majority of what you'll get when you pick up a newspaper or turn on the nightly news.

Maybe it's because the 24-hour news hole demands something, anything, to feature. Maybe journalists think we were paying attention three months ago when they did their two issue stories. As it is, though, the sidelining of the real stuff is troublesome.

I'm a compulsive newshound, but I couldn't tell you the nuances of each candidate's position. And just think, most of the public is much less obsessive (and probably less informed) than I am, and they're the ones heading off to the polls. Given the coverage of this campaign, how could anyone make a wise decision in the voting booth?

Some will argue that those boring old issue stories are out there if you're willing to dig. You can watch every debate, scan old press clippings or poke around on reputable Web sites. Sure you can -- but honestly, who actually does that? In a nation where barely half the eligible population shows up to vote, people get their pictures of the candidates from the major news media. And they are sensationalized, incomplete pictures.

When we start to ask why the news tends to obscure the "real issues" to emphasize petty comments, inconsequential mistakes and soundbites taken way out of context, though, we can get a disturbing answer. "We're a business," newspapers and newscasters might tell us. "To stay afloat we have to give you what you want."

Can it be that we would really rather deliberate over a glib one-liner than a detailed policy proposal? Question a candidate's speech-ending scream rather than his record of political experience? And if so, what's wrong with us?

Clearly, either we news consumers or the campaign journalists or both suffer from a serious misalignment of priorities. Politics is politics, and it's the stuff laws, liberty and life are made of. News is news, and it's supposed to let us in on what we really need to know. That's not to say that we can't have fun with politics, oh no, but we have professionals for that. Let the Jon Stewarts and the David Lettermans do their jobs, and let's have a little less Botox talk and a little more public interest reporting.

We should be asking, nay, begging, for some real coverage from the news. Tell us about economic plans! Gun control positions! Environmental policy proposals! But please, for the love of God, no more coverage of lively concession speeches!

Kinda makes you want to, oh, I don't know ... scream?

Elisabeth Kwak-Hefferan is a senior communications major from Wheaton, Ill. Six Feet One appears on Tuesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.