Silly season

Last Wednesday’s Democratic debate on ABC, in which Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos asked questions about Reverend Wright, Bosnia snipers, “bitterness” comments, William Ayers, and flag lapel pins for the first 45 minutes, has sparked a chorus of criticism about journalistic responsibility and the battle between substance and sensationalism. Or, to paraphrase Obama, we have entered “silly season.” I’m usually pretty neutral in this argument. It’s obvious that substance is more important than any of the mini-controversies that pop up in a campaign cycle, but at the same time, the less-than-substantive moments in a campaign can often be more telling about a candidate (or at least more memorable) than specific policy proposals.

Take 1988: CNN aired the second Presidential debate of the season between George Bush and Michael Dukakis. Bernard Shaw fired the first, and by far the most memorable question of the night:

Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?

I would count that as a fairly sensational (not to mention jarring) question, and certainly a perfect opportunity to criticize the media. But people remember it. And they remember Dukakis’ answer. He didn’t miss a beat, didn’t flinch, didn’t betray an ounce of emotion. He just said:

No, I don’t, Bernard. And I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. We’ve done so in my own state. And it’s one of the reasons why we have had the biggest drop in crime of any industrial state in America; why we have the lowest murder rate of any industrial state in America.

Whoops. Right position, probably not the best way to state it. But whatever, Bush wins the White House and the question is considered one of the game-changing moments in the campaign. Prefer substance? About an hour later, panelist Andrea Mitchell asked Dukakis a question about the modernization of land-based missiles. Not quite as memorable.

Sure, there’s an argument to be made that the media and the voters should be more interested in the land-based missile type questions (well, for the ’80s), and less in the Great Flag Lapel Pin Scandal of 2008. Maybe. I mean, there are varying levels of silliness, and the flag lapel one would probably be at the top of the heap. And ABC clearly overdid it with the tabloid-y issues, and they were very clearly unbalanced in favor of Clinton. But I do think that moving away from the substantive issues from time to time can actually provide some of the more candid moments. And I do think that sometimes those moments can tell us more about the people we are considering entrusting with the Presidency than simply providing a forum for them to regurgitate their well-rehearsed soundbite-sized issue-positions.

So yeah, it’s the silly season, and that’s nothing new. A lot of media watchdogs act as though the focus these trivialities began with the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, and that every debate before was the Lincoln-Douglas debate. Sure… nobody focused on Nixon’s five o’clock shadow back in ‘60, or Truman threatening physical violence against a music critic who gave his daughter an unfavorable review, or FDR’s “Fala” speech, or Grover Cleveland’s illegitimate child. Right… it used to be all about substance.

I really don’t mean this as a defense of the media, because I get as infuriated as anyone by a lot of the junk they cover. I just don’t necessarily think it’s a trade-off — issues vs. horse-race. They should spend more time covering the issues and the substance primarily because it’s important, but also because it helps the good guys win. But there are enough hours in the day to also talk process and to follow the daily pulse of the campaign cycle, even if it does get a little sensational, a little silly. Not only can it be pretty telling about the candidates, but it’s fun, and politics should be fun. If they need to cut something else out to fit both in, cut the missing white girl stuff, or, better yet, the national weather updates. I mean, I could care less if it’s raining in Chicago today, or the temperature should hit 65 degrees in Boston. Now that is infuriating.