Wonder why it’s so hard for candidates to get substantive messages into the press (and perhaps why politics is being reduced to soundbites and competing spin points)? Today, the Washington Post‘s Howard Kurtz offered himself up as Exhibit A of what has become a truism of political coverage: Given the choice, reporters will nearly always cover scandal (or the appearance of such) over substance.
On his WashingtonPost.com blog this morning, Kurtz writes: “I suppose I should get back to blogging the campaign, but this Clinton media psychodrama is more fascinating than, say, John Kerry’s new ad on reducing health care paperwork.”
Kerry’s new ad (streaming video), released yesterday, claims that his proposals to reduce administrative costs will “save literally billions of dollars in health care costs in America” and will lower health care premiums. Such bold claims are obviously worth investigating — if true, they’re worth hearing about, and if not, it’s worth hearing that Kerry is fibbing.
Admittedly, the ad, titled “Paperwork,” isn’t the flashiest bit of PR the candidates have put out this campaign season. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth taking a look at — after all, millions of Americans are going to see it, boring or not. However, the only pieces of coverage we’ve seen so far are brief and inconclusive ad watch pieces from the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times.
We love a good Clinton circus as much as anyone. But is it really worth passing on policy issues that affect the lives of millions of Americans just because Bubba’s back in town?
–Bryan Keefer
