Neil Postman's "Reach Out and Elect Someone"

In case you haven’t noticed, this is an election year. Not just any election year, but a presidential election year. The cable news outlets are practically wall to wall with coverage of the primaries. Even if you’re not in a state holding a primary or caucus, you are still exposed to the campaigning. Candidates are quoted, their actions and reactions are micro-analyzed, and their ads are dissected by the pundits. People are beginning to talk about the candidates and form opinions, but what information are they using to base their views of the candidates?
We live in complicated times, and there are many important issues to consider when deciding who gets your vote. Most people don’t have the time, or the inclination to seek out information and gain an in-depth knowledge of the candidates’ positions on the issues, or their ideas relating to governing. This being the case one can only imagine the lack of understanding of these same issues by the majority of voters.
When most Americans decide who gets their vote, the choice is made like many other decisions, in fact probably like most decisions. They do ‘what feels right’. They vote for who they like. In the article “Reach Out and Elect Someone”, Neil Postman argues, “There may be a case for choosing the best man over party. The point is television does not reveal who the best man is”. With that reality in mind political campaign strategists market the candidate just like a product.
The pressures of attracting advertising dollars have pushed news programs to become more entertaining. Smart campaign strategists use these shows to promote their candidates in the same way publicists use TV talk shows to promote Hollywood product (actors, movies, TV shows). To attract a wider audience news programs don’t dwell too long, or dive too deeply into complex issues. They do something that holds the attention of the largest number of viewers, they gossip.
Thanks to the reporting on the campaign trail we know… John Edwards paid $400 for a hair-cut, Hillary Clinton forgot to tip a waitress, and Barack Obama turned from Hillary Clinton as she approached him and Ted Kennedy after the State of the Union address. Just to help us all determine if we really like Hillary Clinton a slight stammer in her speech and moment of emotion is elevated to “Hillary cries on the campaign trail”. That was followed with the seemingly endless debate of the sincerity of her tears, and an in-depth analysis of the impact said tears had on the election cycle.
Can we really expect an electorate to vote in their best interest, and for the candidate that best represents those interests, when they know more about the candidates’ restaurant etiquette and grooming habits, than about how they would address the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation, or the mortgage crisis?