For Profit Scams: Media and the Democratic Party Primary Season

Democratic Massachusetts Senator and candidate for president Elizabeth Warren made waves recently when she rebuffed an invitation to appear at a Fox news town hall forum. In a tweet, Warren said that Fox executives run a "hate-for-profit" racket and that she was not going to allow them to use her to raise advertising dollars. Appearing on The View, Warren expanded on her decision, calling what Fox does a hate-for-profit "scam" while arguing that Fox executives invite Democratic candidates to forums so that they can demonstrate to advertisers who don't want their brand tarnished by being associated with hate that they (Fox) are in fact "balanced." (Ironically, Fox's Tucker Carlson praised Warren's economic plan.). 

Fox News is a hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracists—it’s designed to turn us against each other, risking life and death consequences, to provide cover for the corruption that’s rotting our government and hollowing out our middle class.

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) May 14, 2019

A few years ago I wrote about how Fox magnifies the worst tendencies of American news media while twisting political conservatism into little more than hyper partisan trolling. So I completely understand where Senator Warren is coming from. Where she misses the mark is in her inference that executives at all other cable and broadcast outlets are not also scam artists. Execs at CNN, MSNBC and other establishment mouthpieces may not be pushing HATE-for-profit scams (although the families of innocent victims of our regime change wars might beg to differ with that assessment), but it's difficult to see their approach to the presidential race so far as being guided by anything other than PROFIT. To put it bluntly, a for-profit scam is only marginally less offensive than a hate-for-profit scam, and it's still a scam. 

The Democratic Party Primary Season Coverage Scam 

As I write, there are over 20 declared Democrats running for president, with a distinct possibility of more getting into the race. And why wouldn't they? Anyone who declares seems to at a minimum get a cable TV town hall forum, interviews on the cable and broadcast network shows, some write ups in national publications, numerous podcast invitations, and some social media buzz. For the rest of their lives they get to put "presidential candidate" on their resumes. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: Your declared Democrats running for president in 2020

If most of these candidates were serious about running for president, they would be hunkered down in Iowa and/or New Hampshire (two predominantly white states that have an over sized impact on selecting the nominee due to the major parties unwillingness to divorces themselves from a tradition that insults the diversity of the modern electorate), building a grassroots network of enthusiastic supporters, and making a mature decision to LEAVE the race if said network fails to materialize. 

Keep in mind that the Iowa caucuses do not start until February 3, 2020. But thanks to the establishment media scam artists (who have been hyping presidential politics since January of 2017) most of the declared candidates don't even have to visit Iowa or New Hampshire. Some candidates (Pete Buttigieg and Beto O'Rourke might be the best examples) seem to have as part of their overall strategy an effort to channel national media attention into local organizing in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other states, but for many of the others running for president appears to be more about: 

*building or reinforcing a personal brand that can be marketed for other opportunities 
*auditioning for a cabinet position or VP
*auditioning to be a future Democratic National Committee chair 
*laying the groundwork to become a featured pundit or media source 
*simply getting the adrenaline rush that comes from 15 minutes of fame 

The scam goes fully national later in June, when there will be two nights of televised "debates" featuring all of the 20+ candidates who've met the Democratic National Committee's arbitrary threshold of polling numbers and fundraising. The DNC's threshold has been a boon for social media platforms, who profit handsomely from the frantic, nonstop ads placed by candidates pleading with us to "donate even a dollar so I can bring my uplifting message to the debates." 

From a civic perspective (note: presidential campaigns are supposed to have something to do with civics, right?), the only way these national "debates" would make sense is if we had a National Primary Day. That is, instead of 50 individual primaries and caucuses spread from February - June, we would simply do them all on one day. The main argument against a national primary day has been that it inherently favors wealthier candidates who can afford to expend resources in many states. There's obviously some truth to that argument, but on the other hand the wealthier candidates already dominate the current system. That will be even more true in 2020, as California--a state which is virtually impossible to campaign in without spending vasts sums of money--is now an "early primary state" that will be dominated by well financed candidates. 

Besides the major political parties, you know who else doesn't want a national primary day? If your answer is, "the executives running for-profit scams at the establishment media corporations," you would be correct. In 2016 these characters milked what Matt Taibbi called the GOP Clown Car Republican primary for months. Turned out that Donald Trump was good for the media business. The nonstop hostility aimed at Bernie Sanders is, I reckon, at attempt to try and turn the Democratic primary season into a circus like the Republicans in 2016. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, an op-ed columnist with establishment Democrat leanings, has already taken to calling Sanders the "Trump of the left." 

My point is that national campaign coverage has little to do with informing voters and everything to do with enhancing the media bottom line. It's a for-profit scam that reduces politics to a kind of Netflix series featuring a handful of A-list stars surrounded by a gaggle of B-listers looking for ways to upstage them. 

An Alternative to Scamming 

Imagine with me a hypothetical world in which establishment media, when it comes to presidential primary campaign coverage, were guided not by a for-profit ethic, but a for-the-people one. What would that look like? 

First, the major establishment media would greatly LIMIT the amount of campaign coverage until a month or two before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. No more automatic televised town halls for any billionaire, governor, mayor, etc. who announces an intention to run for president. Town halls and/or debates would begin shortly before Iowa and New Hampshire, and they would be limited only to those candidates who are generating a serious buzz on the ground in Iowa and/or New Hampshire. 

Serious buzz on the ground does NOT mean poll numbers or how many campaign offices opened in each county--those are things that any well-financed campaign can pull off quite easily. Rather, serious buzz on the ground means attendance at rallies, unpaid volunteers, unsponsored social media activity, and other signs of a campaign connecting with the average voter. Yes, it would take some REAL JOURNALISTIC EFFORT to go out and find which candidates are actually having that kind of impact. 

Second, all campaign journalism should use a "citizens agenda" approach to coverage. NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen has written and spoken extensively on this topic, and he provides a nice summary here. At its root the citizens agenda approach is simple: instead of focusing on meaningless horse race coverage and stupidity ("who's ahead in the polls?" "Can Sanders catch Biden?" "Is Warren likable?"), media should actively find out FROM VOTERS what they want candidates to be talking about as they compete for their votes. It's pretty certain that not many voters are going to say, "I want the candidates to tell me how much money they can raise." 

Assigned to the 2020 campaign, @mattdpearce of @latimes asked his readers, "what should I cover?" and put up a Google form. In two days he had 3,000 replies. https://t.co/8gfq62L31K

— Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) May 13, 2019

Third, independent or third party candidates deserve equal time in campaign coverage. However, the coverage of such candidates in the national press should begin ONLY after the candidates are on the ballot in enough states so that they in theory could receive enough electoral votes to become president. In most states, getting a third party or independent candidate on the ballot is a herculean task (because of state laws biased in favor of the major parties) requiring lots of grassroots support. Candidates able to generate that level of support at the grassroots level have earned the right to be in the national debate. Failure to include them only builds more cynicism within the electorate and further depresses voter turnout. 

In summary, I think Senator Elizabeth Warren's decision to refuse to appear at a Fox News town hall event on the grounds that the execs are running a "hate-for-profit" scam provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the values that guide major media as they cover the presidential campaign. It is my contention that while Fox's competitors may not be as bad as them, still they are involved in a for-profit scam that calls into question their ability to play a meaningful civic role in the election of the president of the United States. 

The fact that millions of Americans rely on media that are engaged in a for-profit scam to learn about presidential candidates is not a problem easily solved. Yet it's a problem that major media should try and solve soon, as their protests against Mr. Trump's calling them "fake" have limited credibility when it turns out that media moguls are themselves Trump-style grifters and manipulators.