arthur solomonThe presidential primary election season is heating up to a boiling point, or is it the melting point for some candidates? (Too bad it isn’t the frozen point, which in show biz parlance means everything is set.) The boiling point is good news for the cable TV networks, which use the political dog and cat fights as a vehicle to increase viewers. Unfortunately, it’s bad news for Americans who like serious political discussions.

Of course, there’s also the low point, which cable political programming owns. But it’s more than just endlessly nonsensical punditry talk shows, (I wish I could have a job where I can be so wrong so often and still make a handsome salary), or programs that all are the same, the only difference being the cast of pundits and the anchors. There are also the political insiders and advisors to candidates who act as if they know the answers to everything, even though most of them have not managed a winning national presidential campaign for decades.

Then there are the supposedly apices of political programming, the Sunday morning shows that have become propaganda reality shows for candidates or their spokespersons. What they have become is a more calm, less shouting and interrupting carbon copy of the daily cable shows. (Writer’s Take # 1 -These shows should be required watching for anyone in our business so they can see how properly trained guests largely ignore host’s questions and stick to their talking points.)

(Writer’s Take # 2 – While at the political PR firm, some of the candidates I hawked had good intentions; others had selfish outlooks that would benefit themselves, just like a lot of the unsavory clients many in our business have sold their souls to. Light one up, or drink responsibly, sound familiar? )

What all the political TV shows add up to is the dumbing down of the political process.

But if I had to choose what is most responsible for the dumbing down of Americans when the subject is politics, it would be the political coverage on CNN, FNC and MSNBC.

Here’s why:

American’s like to root for the underdog. But when underdogs in a presidential primary – see Sens. Sanders and Cruz – were constantly spoken of as threats to front runners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, even in the early primary days when the underdogs were far behind, that was not reporting. That was tabloid television, hoping to make headlines and gain viewers.

Americans also like to root for the maverick who challenges the establishment, in this case Sanders and Trump. It seems that cable TV, in its quest for larger viewership, also roots for the mavericks. For months, both of these “rebels” have been gaining free TV time with attacks on their opponents’ positions. But where were the hard questions asking specifics about the positions Sanders and Trump shouted? I’ll tell you where: In the newspapers. (Writer’s Take # 3 – (Maybe the hosts didn’t ask the tough questions because they were following the lawyer’s tenet of never asking a question that you don’t know the answer to.)

Question: Am I the only one who has noticed a major short coming (I say “a” because there are so many short comings about cable TV political reporting) concerning questioning of guests on the shows. Hosts seem to have a list of questions and regardless of the answers go on to the next planned question. (Writer’s Take #4– Have follow-up questions been stricken from communication schools’ text books or are hosts incapable of acting like knowledgeable print beat reporters?)

As I’ve said before, political reporting on cable TV holds a special place in the journalism Hall of Shame. Coverage resembles the movie “Groundhog Day,” as pundits repeat the same humdrum analysis dozens of times a day, 365 days a year. Coverage is usually limited to opposing views from partisan spokespersons echoing party or candidates’ talking points. Or interviews are conducted with think tank experts without the hosts telling the viewers the tankers’ philosophy, giving the impression that they are listening to unbiased experts. (Writer’s Take # 5 – Unbiased experts? Nothing could be further from truth. At least when we hawk our clients’ positions, it’s obvious to all what we’re trying to accomplish. We don’t pretend to be unbiased.)

Most often, tough questions are never asked; neither are unexpected questions so the guests are rarely caught off guard without pre-planned answers (unlike Sanders’ editorial board questioning with the New York Daily News that made national headlines.) A cynic might believe that tough questions are not the norm because many of these programs would cease to be if guests were asked tough questions and refuse to appear. (Writer’s Take # 6 – Providing a free propaganda forum ensures a continuous flow of guests at little or no cost.)

And that’s how TV has turned politics into a sitcom show, with the cast composed of hosts, pundits, politicians and their spokespersons. Unfortunately, because of the way cable TV covers politics the winners will be the cable networks because of higher TV ratings, leading to increased commercial costs. The losers are the American people.

* * *

Arthur Solomon, a former journalist, was a senior VP/senior counselor at Burson-Marsteller, and was responsible for restructuring, managing and playing key roles in some of the most significant national and international sports and non-sports programs. He now is a frequent contributor to public relations publications, consults on public relations projects and is on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee. He can be reached at [email protected].