Slanted Debate Previews
The lock-step press tries to play games with the public's expectations
by Dave "Doctor" Gonzo

Tuesday, Oct. 3, 2000 -- NEW YORK (AmpolNS) -- Well, it looks like the press has gone into their ever-familiar lock step mode again.

Following a nonstop stream of of slanted pundit speculation on this Sunday's political talk programs, commentary that sounded tailor-made to play down the importance of the debates, the major papers published a litany of so-called "debate preview" articles yesterday and this morning -- with a pattern of spin that they expect you to keep in mind during this evening's debates.

Spin point no. 1: because Al Gore is such an outstanding debater, the expectations for George W. Bush are low -- therefore, if Bush does reasonably well, he will have "won" the first debate.

Right. This first position is predicated on Bush's reputation for being a "plain-spoken" guy from Texas and Gore's reputation as a fast-on-his-feet policy wonk. This stereotypical oversimplification ignores the fact that in the eyes of many members of the press, Bush has done reasonably well in previous debates at both the gubernatorial and GOP nominee level. And suddenly the press is treating this defining event like some sort of golf game between executives, granting the obviously disadvantaged Bush a generous handicap.

Spin point no. 2: should Gore "beat up" on Bush, he will end up looking like a bully and therefore lose the debate. Some press outlets are embellishing this theme with phrases such as "Gore is signaling he's going to avoid attacking his rival during the debate" (that straight from CNN).

Of course, the assertion is nonsense. In fact, it almost reads as an implicit threat from some members of the press: if Gore comes on strong, we will penalize him in our editorials and coverage. But there is also the implication that Gore is confident that he can win on both issues and charm, the latter being a supposed Bush "advantage."

Hmm... in Bush's case, do people really find "subliminables" charming?

But I digress.

Naturally, members of the press pack -- the same gang that were openly mocking the and kept calling Gore in the press room during his New Hampshire debate with Bill Bradley -- assume that readers cannot read between the lines.

Of course, most readers know better.

These so-called "Previews" also give the press another excuse to ignore important facts and issues surrounding the campaign and the candidates: for example, Gore's continuing lead in most polls, or Bush's steady stream of malapropisms and big holes in his budget and pharma schemes. But then, what more should you expect from these self-important shapers of opinion? After all, it's far easier to disguise opinion as news than it is bad to go out and look for real story.

Besides, it will all be forgotten by tomorrow's news cycle.

Not!

'Nuff said.