Why Are We Letting Television Networks Choose Our Leaders?
Like 24 million other Americans, I rushed home after work to tune into the first Republican debate, excited that I might catch Donald Trump say something…well Trumpish. I felt silly for falling into the trap and tuning into the circus that the Republican debates have become.
What was once a dignified tradition has now turned into an orgy of entertainment and television-ready soundbites. Lincoln would turn in his grave if he knew what we’ve done with politics.
The week before the debates, the big news was the decision of the Fox network to whittle down the amount of candidates and air a “lower-tier” debate, like a political NIT tournament. Already it appeared that the networks possessed the power to determine whose ideas would be heard and who would be knocked into political purgatory (yes, I’m looking at you Rick Perry).
Yet this isn’t the only way that television networks control who may become our next commander-in-chief.
Much has been written about the devastating effects of the Citizens United case, which opened the floodgates for Super PACs to basically donate as much as they please, effectively turning money into a weapon and causing the election cycle to be saturated with more cash than ever before ($4 billion during the last midterm election).
But what is generally ignored is the role that television networks play in this game of who-can-spend-the-most. After all, the money has to be spent somewhere.
It’s been reported that networks receive a 30% boost in revenue during election years, mainly due to spending on political ads. Throughout Obama’s 2008 presidential run, 60% of each dollar was spent on televised ads.
Networks have become dependent on this cyclical income, partly the reason why more debates are aired than episodes of The Big Bang Theory. Political ads bring in big bucks for the big networks and we continue to watch, evident by the record breaking viewership of the latest Trump-filled debate.
Don’t count on this trend ending anytime soon.
The cycle goes like this: Campaigns and PACs pay broadcasters, who then air commercials for their chosen candidate. We see the same familiar faces and are more likely to vote for these candidates, simply by a result of the familiarity principle.
More money = more ads = more votes, to put the equation simply.
In effect, we are encouraging this money grab every time we tune into a debate or vote for a candidate who saturates the airwaves with ads. Like many situations, we have little cognizance of how much we are perverting our own system of government.
In addition, networks jack up their advertising rates throughout election season, bringing in even more cash from candidates and PACs who can afford it. For example, in 2012 Mitt Romney’s campaign spent $1000 to air a minute long commercial in Des Moines, Iowa during one of the city’s most popular morning news programs.
Airing a political ad during campaign season has become the new Super Bowl commercial. And just as only major corporations are able to afford a Super Bowl spot, only the big moneyed candidates are able to afford a spot during election season.
It’s time that we realize our role in turning politics into a stage show.
It is our job to be informed citizens. Without a public who scrutinizes their leaders, democracy is meaningless.
Rather than be swayed by a television network, do your own independent research. Check out sites such as ontheissues.org or other non-partisan sites that provide unbiased comparisons of each candidate.
Make your own choice and refuse to let a network decide for you.
And for God’s sake, stop paying attention to Donald Trump.
