The media's role in nasty campaigning

When it fits their agenda, the media oozes sentimentality for tradition in America. Of course, when it doesn’t suit them, they toss tradition straight out the window. Every once in a while, though, tradition does fit their agenda and they still tee off on it because it makes them even more money. Take, for instance, political campaigns, most notably Presidential campaigns. The media bemoans how uncivil and nasty presidential campaigns are, yet they amp up controversy at every chance. They take positions supporting campaign finance reform, but they greedily take ad money from 527’s. They have a serious conflict of interest. Nasty campaigns mean more money flowing into the coffers. Nasty campaigns are supported with large ad budgets, which are spent in these news outlets. Nasty campaigns mean more people tune into the news or read a paper or magazine. That means these outlets can charge more (TV & radio more so) for their ad spots. If the media truly and honestly wants campaign reform, then they need to stop profiting from campaigns. Set aside X amount off ad time or space, divvy it up 50/50, and give it away to the two sides, or charge it at cost. Once the media no longer has a vested financial interest in these campaigns, they will no longer contribute to the nastiness.

Nasty Presidential campaigns are as American as baseball and apple pie. If the press hates that tradition as much as they proclaim to, then they need to inoculate themselves from the financial benefits of nasty campaigns. That will go much farther than legislated speech ever could.