As an independent voter and keen political junkie, the 2016 election has proven to be much more of a case study in sensationalism and “infotainment” than a legitimate litmus test of policy and issues for the American public. According to a report by SMG Delta, Donald Trump’s expenditures allocated to television advertising rank lowest amongst the running candidates. Despite not spending much on television advertising, Trump has managed to earn $400 million in free media via traditional sources of print and broadcast media as well as social networks like Facebook, Twitter and Reddit, equaling Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz’s media shares in February combined.
Since the Republican primary continues to heat up as only three contenders — Trump, Cruz and John Kasich — remain for the party nomination, the rhetoric becomes more vitriolic and the attacks increasingly personal. A recent incident that immediately comes to mind is the controversy over the anti-Trump attack ad using a magazine photo from Melania Trump’s former modelling days. Although there is no denial of the problematic nature of the ad, many have countered with the adage “all is fair in war” — especially when it comes to American presidential elections.
What I found most disturbing about the entire ordeal was Trump’s willingness to drag Cruz’s wife, Heidi, through the muck in response. The Trump campaign first blamed the Cruz campaign for running the ad under the guise of the “Make America Awesome” super PAC in spite of federal regulations preventing candidates from colluding with PACs. Trump has yet to provide evidence of Cruz’s violation of the regulation which could disqualify his campaign among other consequences. Instead, Trump further debased political rhetoric by bringing Heidi Cruz into the fray by tweeting an unflattering picture of her alongside his supermodel wife. In doing so, Trump not only prolonged reducing his wife to just her physical looks but unnecessarily involved Heidi for something that cannot be directly traced back to the Cruz campaign.
When asked about the attack ad and its aftermath, Kasich stated, “Families have to be off limits. I mean, you cannot get these attacks on families. And if this becomes the order of the day, what kind of people are we going to have in the future that are going to run for public office? There’s got to be some rules, and there’s got to be something that gets set there. Some decency.” Kasich has a point here — the GOP has long been the self-proclaimed party of wholesome, family values. How can it continue to define itself as such when its frontrunner chooses to conduct his campaign in such a vindictive and disparaging manner? What can we expect from him, if elected, when he has to negotiate with world leaders? Is Trump’s brand of mudslinging the future of our country? One does not need to be reminded of his long history of appalling remarks about women and minorities. His demeaning comments and persistent feud with Fox News commentator, Megyn Kelly, started when she asked him about his references to women he is not fond of as “fat pigs,” “dogs,” “slobs” and “disgusting animals.” To which he proved her point during an interview by stating that Kelly had “blood coming out of her wherever” when she confronted him about his language toward women.
Sexist commentary is not solely limited to Trump’s campaign or the GOP. Throughout her campaign Clinton has been criticized for being too shrill, aggressive and opportunistic in her quest to become the first woman to be elected president. Created for the purpose of voicing the ideas of the public, the media’s coverage of Trump and sexist claims against Clinton must bear some semblance to what is going on inside the collective head of the American public. Based off that assumption, the public has an insatiable craving for sensationalism and rhetorical attacks that seem to be exponentially increasing in preposterousness as we approach Election Day. Additionally, it is disheartening to see levelheaded candidates like Kasich, who has run a relatively positive and clean campaign thus far, brushed aside in the Republican primary when he has a favorability rating of around 70 percent in Ohio and a recent poll released by Quinnipiac University on March 30 shows him as performing best as the party nominee come November, edging out both Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a hypothetical general election. Sanders’ democratic socialism, on the other hand, does not come close to paralleling Kasich’s pragmatic moderateness.
Yet, Sanders and Kasich are similar in their lack of media coverage. Despite running on a relatively extreme platform for a majority of American voters, Sanders receives half of Clinton’s media coverage, including on television, in newspapers and magazines, and on social media. Even though he delivered an hour-long speech after Clinton’s win in the Arizona primary, none of the major cable news channels — Fox, CNN, and MSNBC — broadcasted his speech. The reason for the media’s indifference to Kasich and Sanders is simple — they are simply not scandalous or controversial enough. The networks pander to the guilty vices of the American public — controversy and sensationalism. There were times when political shows like “House of Cards” and “Scandal” appeared outright ridiculous in terms of the level of drama in their plots. With the direction the election is going in terms of demeaning language and smear attacks, the antics of Frank Underwood and Olivia Pope seem superfluous when you can just tune into a daily episode of the Donald Trump Show available on the news channel of your preference.
