Media Coverage of the Election and the Ignorant Electorate

It's a vicious cycle. The majority of the electorate is ignorant and likes it that way, and the mainstream media, including talk radio by the way, are for-profit enterprises that give people what they want to hear - what will sell more newspapers, garner more advertising, create more buzz. While some individual reporters, editors and media executives might have an altruistic, "serve the public" view of their role, the bottom line is profit. The symbiotic relationship between the stupid segment of the public and the profit seeking, competitive media results in, for the most part, dumbed-down coverage. While it is true that there have been articles dissecting the candidates' plans (or lack of the same), including the feasibility of same, as well as economic impact, not to mention their legality, these types of stories generally get ignored. Yet the more spectacular coverage does get more traction and gets results. For example, the recordings of Trump talking about sexual assault got days and days of coverage, and seemed to have an effect on the polls - yet, was anyone really surprised that Trump would say anything like that? It was 100% consistent with his previous statements and his many years in the public eye. And the announcement by the FBI, 10 days before the election, that there were Clinton related emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop that they were checking out. We already know that Clinton had a problem with emails and was investigated, was it really a story that there were emails on a laptop that her top aide used? Yet, this news seemed to move the polls as well. Why? Because this kind of news is profitable for the media outlets - why is it profitable? Because the ignorant electorate likes the good vs. evil narrative, they like things simple, and they like to hear things that corroborate what they already believe.

So what happens? The candidates go along with it. The candidate who spends a lot of time laying out detailed economic plans is ignored, while a candidate who shouts out a simple slogan gets support. Hillary Clinton started out as the nerd candidate. Go back and listen to some of her back and forth with Bernie sanders during the primaries. Not particularly exciting. Lots of policy, lots of plans, lots of economics. When the conventions were over and she had to go head-to-head with Trump she thought she could do the same, but quickly turned to one liners and slogans and yes, name-calling, to battle Trump.

This will continue for as long as the voters refuse to demand substance from the candidates and stop rewarding the media for vacuous reporting. When the majority of voters stop being ignorant.