Read More of the Same Day's Blog

Heading into the final full week of the midterm election contest, Campaign 2010 is still on track to break records for intensity of coverage on the network nightly newscasts. It has been four weeks since Tyndall Report reported that the 2010 had already attracted more attention than the lackluster midterm races of 1990, 1998 and 2002. Only the two so-called change elections--when partisan control of the House of Representatives switched--were more newsworthy at that time: 1994 and 2006. In the last four weeks, Campaign 2010 has logged an additional three hours of coverage on the three nightly newscasts. So 2006 is already in the rear view mirror. The leaves 1994, the last time Republicans took the Speaker's gavel away from Democrats, yet to be surpassed.

Yet even as Campaign 2010 heads for record levels of coverage, what is remarkable is how little hard news the campaign has made. In the most recent four weeks (20 weekdays of newscasts), the midterm campaign has qualified as Story of the Day on only three occasions. On one occasion, for example, Barack Obama began his get-out-the-vote tour of college campuses; on another Sarah Palin kicked off her 30-city tour for the Tea Party Express. On those 20 weekdays, the campaign was chosen as NBC's lead item just three times; ABC and CBS on only two dates.

The rescued miners trapped beneath the Atacama Desert in Chile played a large part in hogging headlines that would otherwise have belonged to politicians--but that is only part of the explanation. As important as this election has the potential to be in shifting the balance of power on Capitol Hill, it is still just a collection of local and statewide races. When news is made on the stump it may turn into headlines on local newscasts. The mission of the national newscasts is more feature-oriented, to provide overview, context and analysis.

So, how have the networks managed to produce angles of national relevance out of the crossfire of hundreds of local races? Too often their solution has been to take the easy route. Too often the celebrity candidate with the outrageous soundbite or the intemperate campaign commercial has qualified for the national spotlight. No surprise, the three most heavily covered Senate races have been in Delaware (36 mins), Nevada (18 mins) and Connecticut (16 mins)--a once-upon-a-time wannabe witch, Man Up! Harry Reid, and an executive who kicks her husband in the balls.

Yet the coverage was not unremittingly trivial. Let's explain how to sort the wheat from the chaff and to offer some links for enlightenment. As usual, as the saying goes, In Todd We Trust (Chuck that is). All others pay cash.

Here are the numbers. Campaign 2010 has now attracted a total of 433 minutes of coverage so far this year. CBS has taken the lead (163 v ABC 133, NBC 137). Of that total, most time has been focused on the Senate, either individual races (167 mins) or the overall contest for control (60 mins). Interestingly, the House of Representatives (68 mins) is still lagging the attention it attracted in the two previous turnover years (167 mins in 1994; 152 mins in 2006). ABC has been more conscientious than its two rivals in taking time to cover individual House races. Here is Jake Tapper on John Spratt's defense of his South Carolina seat; John Berman on Barney Frank in Massachusetts; and Jonathan Karl on the at-large seat in South Dakota.

For the record, the annual totals for previous midterms are as follows: 1990--258 mins; 1994--453 mins; 1998--184 mins; 2002--256 mins; 2006--375 mins.

Considering that the contest for control of the House is taking place nationwide and that Senate races are being held only in selected states, the networks' decision to find the Senate more newsworthy demonstrates how much easier they find it to cover flamboyant celebrities rather than abstract public policies; the clash of personalities rather than ideological, regional and demographic trends. Flamboyant as in…

Christine O'Donnell advertises the fact that she is not a witch.
Rand Paul is accused of worshipping Aqua Buddha by Jack Conway.
Ken Buck equates being gay with being a drunk on Meet the Press.
Joe Miller has his bodyguards handcuff a questioning reporter.
Linda McMahon kicks her husband in the groin on WWE videotape.
Meg Whitman is insulted as a whore by Jerry Brown's aide.

[For the record, NBC's Lee Cowan explained that Whitman-is-a-whore slur thus: Brown's staff had just discovered that she had promised to exempt police pensions from budget cuts in exchange for the police union's endorsement. I say that the term "pander" is routinely used, without controversy, when a politician trades the promise of a favor to an interest group in exchange for its support. So it is clear that there is no problem with using prostitution as a metaphor for the shameless trading of campaign pledges for votes. Whitman's complaint appears to rest on the idea that a politician should never be accused of figuratively selling herself for sex--only of offering to sell someone else]

These examples are plenty of fun but generic invocations of the angry mood on the stump tell viewers little about the substance of the campaign and its consequences for the future. "Anger management is not required or even expected," joked NBC's Kelly O'Donnell. "Beyond political theater there is real anger heading to these midterms," worried NBC's Mike Taibbi. NBC's campaign coverage this year has been the oddest mixture. These correspondents link a series of outrageous soundbites under the lazy rubric "anger." Andrea Mitchell edits a montage of clips of actors in campaign commercials--the so-called hickey blue collar types in West Virginia, the Law & Order character posing as a steelworker in Ohio, the stock photos of threatening undocumented immigrants in Louisiana and Nevada--to set up her punchline: "You would not think there is a shortage of unemployed workers in Ohio." Meanwhile the network's political director Chuck Todd has routinely filed the most concise and lucid analysis, finding insight amid the noise.

Besides these shiny soundbites, Todd, and several other political correspondents, did the more difficult work of trying to explain what is going on in four separate areas. What are the key voter trends that will determine this election? Which public policy issues are driving voters to pick sides and which are irrelevant? What political tactics is each party using to maximize its prospects and minimize its losses? What are the potential future scenarios for the conduct of the federal government?

Andrew Tyndall 10/27/10 8:36:23 pm

© 2010 Tyndall Report