View From Down Under

Stephen Gottlieb of the Albany Law School recently published a paper describing the polarization of politics in terms of legal and regulatory changes over the last 25 years.  He focused on two areas: media and candidate selection.

In the days of Walter Cronkite, there were three national networks operating under a fairness doctrine which required the networks to show both sides of a political argument.  Because that was both controversial and kind of boring, network news and commentary was designed not to offend.  The focus was on “that’s the way it is”, and no further.  As the media framework shifted to allow more networks, the upstarts found they needed to differentiate themselves.  The mainstream networks ultimately found that trying to please everyone ended up pleasing no one – and losing ratings in the process.  In the chase for advertising dollars, news became more political, reporting changed to analysis, and analysis descended into name calling and face pulling.

At the same time, the candidate selection process shifted solidly towards primaries.  This move, coupled with increased gerrymandering of safe seats and changes to campaign finance laws, ended up with each party putting up candidates that were more and more removed from the center.

So the question that raises to me is: Do you watch or listen to programs you may disagree with?  Any liberals out there spend any time listening to Limbaugh or watching O’Reilly?  Any conservatives spend time on the Huffington Post? 

A couple of other questions:  Does anyone get excited about a moderate candidate?  Do you trust any television or radio host as much as you trusted Walter Cronkite?