New at CJR: In defense of convention coverage

In my new column at CJR, I defend the value of convention coverage despite a lack of breaking news. Here's how it begins:

Every four years, the two presidential candidates do battle in a series of high-stakes televised events that could shape the outcome of the campaign. They also take part in some highly scripted programming where little real news is made and few viewers’ minds are changed.

Voters who take the word of elite political journalists would be forgiven for thinking that the first events are the presidential debates and the second are the party conventions, but as the political scientists Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien show, the truth is actually the opposite...

Read the whole thing for more.

Comments

[David in Cal]

Brendan makes a great point about Presidential candidates being filtered through journalists who are reticent to allow them to speak or be quoted at any length without interpretation or analysis. IIRC in 2000 George Bush was interviewed by David Letterman. (I believe this is what I'm remembering.) Letterman is politically liberal; he disagreed with Bush on the issues. However, Dave did allow Bush to answer his questions at length.

What made this appearance worth noting is that throughout the entire campaign, this appearance was the best opportunity provided for Bush to talk to a TV audience for an extended period. No news show or talking heads show provided a comparable opportunity.