The Difference Between Newsworthy and Unecessary: Media Coverage of 2012 Election

A very interesting article by Jason Linkins from The Huffington Post, discusses the concern around media coverage of elections and what their restrictions should be in the future. With the upcoming election being so close, more and more people are realizing the lengths the media goes to provide every detail possible about the running mates. Some information is not even necessary, but the media would rather go overkill than risk not being the first to report on something. But is all politicl information newsworthy? Linkin interviews Jay Rosen, an NYU professor of journalism concerning these issues and more specifically, how the media highlights on ALL election candidates instead of bringing importance to the ones that actually show promise.


"If campaign coverage is supposed to be about... discovering who has "what it takes" (Richard Ben Cramer) to win the nomination and the election... then the narrative is about winning and overcoming odds and the decision rule should be: cover the candidates who are likely to affect the outcome. Ignore those who won't. Purpose gives you the answer to priorities."


Linkins goes on to say, "Journalists should give more coverage to the candidates who make substantive, material attempts to grapple with the issues that their reporting revealed. Those that fail to do so should be continually called out on the matter."


Linkin nailed this right on the head. With something as important as electing the future leader of our country, media should not cover every political candidate, as it can also get confusing. I know in terms of the younger generation we don't all necessarily follow politics on a daily basis, so when we finally research it and can't seem to be able to pick a side (because of there being so many options) it becomes tedious to merely seek out the highlights of the prime candidates. Journalists and other media writers should really take this into consideration in our next election and all future elections. To give appropriate coverage to the serious candidates could greatly impact the amount of voters and more importantly, create less confusion for the everyday person concerning politics and our government.


With the media influencing so much of campaign coverage, who is actually controlling the campaigning? Media outlets have expanded so much that we are provided with information everywhere we go, even information we don't actually need to know. I can't say I miss the days of newspapers, because unfortunately, I grew up with this digital age. It sounds like a more relaxed approach to provide newspapers with headlines and that being the source of finding out information. But now, we find it with the click of the button and while this has made it easier, we lose sight of what's actually important and what helps us pass the time while reading. 


Will journalists listen? Will the media restrict its coverage? Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an end in sight and if anything, it may just be getting worse. With more and more media outlets readily becoming available for journalists and writers alike, it makes sense that the coverage of elections can seem excessive, but that doesn't mean we can't still be cautious of this and even prevent it from escalating in the future.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/campaign-coverage-jay-rosen_n_870533.html