Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Has Politics Jumped the Shark?

Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo at 9:28 AM on May 9, 2008.


When will the entertainment press (and the electorate) tire of our latest reality show?
shark

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Media and Technology in your
mailbox!

 

Sex? Yawn. Politics? That’s Hot!

A FORMER editor of People magazine had some hard-and-fast rules: young is better than old, pretty is better than ugly, television is better than music, music is better than movies, movies are better than sports.

And anything is better than politics.

Apparently that rule does not apply to the high-drama presidential campaign of 2008, judging by the unprecedented number of pages in People and other celebrity magazines devoted to coverage of the presidential candidates, along with their spouses, children, BlackBerries, wardrobes, iPods and travel Bibles.

“People are craving it,” said Larry Hackett, People’s managing editor. “They are really, really interested in what’s going on, and so we’re covering it more than ever.”

Behold the symbiotic relationship that has developed between the campaigns and the entertainment press. Some of the most celebrity-centric, entertainment-obsessed news media outlets have added a heavy dose of political news to their lineups, taking space normally devoted to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie and handing it to articles on people known more for wonkiness than sexiness.

And the candidates have batted their eyelashes back, obligingly granting interviews, posing for pictures and writing personal essays.

Campaign aides say that they can usually count on a soft, friendly chat conducted by reporters or television hosts who are unlikely to hit them with questions about the Iraq war, while at the same time reaching crucial younger female voters.

Driving all of it, editors and campaign aides say, is the appetite for news on presidential candidates and their families — people who have transcended politics to become bona fide celebrities. As the campaign stretches into its second year, in some corners it is simply seen as entertainment.

What do you think? Is this a good thing or a bad thing for politics?

I can see an argument for either. But I do wonder what happens when the Politics Show gets boring in its second season as so many of them do? Will it lose its audience? Does it matter?

Digg!

Tagged as: politics, media, reality tv


Note to Elite Pundits: You Don't Speak for 'Ordinary Folks'
These gasbags will never tire of the narrative.
Post by Digby. July 19, 2008.
Iraqi Media: U.S. Building Airbase on Iran Border
If true, a provocative move.
Post by Editors. July 19, 2008.
This Week in God
A round-up of religious news.
Post by Steve Benen. July 19, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Politics without content
Posted by: Artkansas on May 9, 2008 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's like valhalla for politicians. Issues are no longer important. What's important is personality and looks.

Just what we need.









NOT!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's still "entertainment"
Posted by: photon's feather on May 9, 2008 3:57 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The candidates' spouses, families, iPods, etc., are not politics. I don't know much about their families - and I don't want to, beyond relevant topics, such as political/financial connections. Don't care how they wear their hair, how they furnish their homes, who their favorite designers (of anything) are, or any other trivia.

Sorry, if that's what passes for politics, it's understandable that we will (soon) have two corporatists in the final run for the White House.

I heard it said early in the primary that Kucinich wasn't tall enough or attractive enough - but his wife looks like a fashion plate, so that might make up for it. My response: don't care, don't care, don't care, and huh? (in that order).

It doesn't seem that the Republicans care, either: look what they elected: a) a cross between Goofy and Elmer Fudd, and b) the closest thing to a bull-dog I have ever seen walking on two legs. [Sorry, folks, I don't usually resort to making fun of peoples' looks - but in this context it is relevant.]

Why the focus on faces? Why not focus on what goes on behind the face? (Would you rather have a good-looking neocon or a plug-ugly progressive?) A president's policies affect us. But his/her stylishness?

Families? Who cares?! Unless the spouse has affiliations that might lead to influence in an unacceptable direction - say, connections with Blackwater or membership in Hagee's church - what do I care?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are they still seeking the Ultimate Reality TV program?...
Posted by: Bearzerker on May 9, 2008 4:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...which is already so [yawn] passe...
which is lazy, cheap and non-demanding to them, while maintaining a mental drain to us!
[are they actually trying to dumb us down to their hosts level or what?]

Now if broadcasters actually talked about the "issues and solutions to real problems"
then I could classify it as "Anti-Fiction TV" cause real life is always more interesting then fiction!
Audiences watch but only when it commands their attention!
which real life politicals thrive in!

Why are politicals so afraid to answer straight up, off the hip and outta the lip?
to straight up, shoot-em up questions?
the cure is to starve them of real press coverage!

I'm thinking it must be our reality type personality celebrity hosts
that automatically dumbs "US" down to "THEIR" level!

Broadcasters must realize that we don't want reality-bites info-tainment anymore...
we want political anti-fiction TV anchored by a Walter Cronkite personality going after the real issues... right and left of us all!

Stewart and Colbert are anything but stupid, which is why they make it look so easy...
satire sells, while reality infotainment not so much!

Political anti-fiction TV is long over-due... comedy may make swallowing the big pill easier,
but its only a treatment not a cure!
adopt Political anti-fiction TV... because its a treatment before we get sick!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

entertainment vs substance
Posted by: sui_generis on May 12, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As someone who works for one of those glossy celebrity mags, I can tell you that the people I work for ARE NOT QUALIFIED to read politically-loaded articles, much less write them. They're used by the campaigns of the people they're covering to basically be free commercial space, without even seeming to know or care.

The money is the bottom line -- as long as they can turn a healthy profit and not get a flood of nasty letters by featuring political figures along with celebs on their glossy pages, they are going to do so. They get the prestige of getting access to the figures that the hard news coverage can't (because they have nothing to fear from the entertainment folks), and the campaigns get free kid gloves coverage. It's a symbiotic relationship, one that only damages the readers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]