The sky is not falling

Less than three hours from the first debate and the media machine is running in high gear. Anyone with access to a phone or television has been hounded over the high stakes of this first debate.

On Fox, cheerleaders promote the “Battle at Hofstra.”

MSNBC counts down the hours to “Clinton vs. Trump.”

This morning, Chris Cuomo on CNN said, “the hype is justified” and referred to the debate as a “battle of styles and facts.”

“It could be the greatest political show on Earth.” (CNN)

“first debate will be more like a mud wrestle than a policy contest” (The Sydney Morning Herald)

Global stock prices are falling, gold is rising, stars are tweeting, there’s advice for Donald, advice for Hillary, advice for Lester,  and plenty of people who are “outraged in advance.”

Why is the media losing its proverbial heads over 90 minutes of unscripted television?

Because they can.

Debates are good for media. Like sporting events, they force us to watch at the same time. Unlike sporting events, no single network has exclusive access. Debates are viewed across mediums and networks thus creating competition for viewers.  Networks must entice us to choose them, trust them, and ultimately be exposed to their advertising.

It’s all about the money. Plenty of journalists, editors and producers will tell you that. Hyping the event and creating urgency drives viewership. We want to be part of the democratic project that is debate, we need to jump on the bandwagon and join the estimated 100 million others who will tune in. Missing the Super Bowl of politics will make us social pariahs tomorrow at the water cooler, watching forlornly as other relive the best moments.

Debates are big money to networks. Ad prices are on par with some of the most popular prime time shows, $200,000 - $225,000 for a single 30 second spot during pre or post debate coverage. (There are no commercials during the actual debate).

Even better, networks are tying these coveted spots to larger election season packages, forcing companies to pay top dollar for a place at the table.

Smart strategy? Sure. Good for democracy? I’m not so sure.

There is limited evidence that debates matter. USA Today makes the case for yes; a review of political science research says no; and according to the New York Times, it’s complicated.

Monmouth University polling reveals the following:

Three-in-four voters (75%) plan to watch the first debate…Despite the anticipated interest, very few voters expect that the debate’s outcome will have an impact on their ultimate candidate choice.  Just 2% say it is very likely that the debate will cause them to change their mind or help them decide on their vote choice. Another 10% say the debate is somewhat likely to have an impact.  Fully 87% do not see any possibility where the debate will actually have an impact on their vote choice. 

Is the hype justified? Only tonight will tell. Impressions, gaffes, and one-liners can attach themselves to candidates like a tagalong sibling. (Just ask Richard Nixon). Will failure tonight end a presidential campaign? Unlikely