Eden Leavey ’28 is an English major in the St. Andrews Joint Degree Programme. She is an intern for The Flat Hat, seeking to tell stories through journalism, creative writing, theater and dance among other creative mediums. Contact her at edleavey@wm.edu.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
Twice now, I have watched my peers crowd around the tiny television screen in our neighboring dorm hall’s lounge and listen intently to the presidential and vice presidential candidates’ every word. The 2024 United States second presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump occurred on Sept. 10, and the vice presidential debate between Gov. Tim Waltz and Sen. JD Vance occurred on Oct. 1.
As an aspiring journalist, I have always been very invested in politics, and even more so about the importance of staying informed on current events. Yet, I do not watch the presidential debates, or — truthfully — any televised news, for that matter. Call me a technophobe, but I am an old-school print journalism enthusiast through and through.
On principle, I do believe that the presidential debates are meant to be a space for political discourse by allowing candidates to share their vision for change if elected and allowing viewers to learn about the views of potential White House inhabitants. Despite this, our society has gravitated toward a form of communication that prioritizes entertainment over intellect that, in practice, hinders the efficacy of political discourse, particularly in televised media.
If you are not already familiar with it, let me introduce you to one of my favorite books: “Amusing Ourselves to Death” by Neil Postman. It is a must-read for anyone who is interested in the intersection of modern-day media, politics and journalism, and much of my argument hinges upon the ideas put forth in it.
Postman wrote “Amusing Ourselves to Death” in 1985 as a reflection on the influence that television had on communication after becoming a form of mainstream media in American society and culture. What makes this book such a fascinating read, though, is the accuracy with which Postman predicts the implications of television on public discourse in the 21st century.
“Amusing Ourselves to Death” asserts that a cultural shift is brought about with each transition to a new primary mode of communication among humanity. When written word replaced oral tradition, for instance, it constructed the basis of phonetic language, grammar and rhetoric, which became the dominating elements of public discourse. Postman argues that the transition from print to broadcast media gave emphasis to the dramatization of reality and the production of bite-sized information, resulting in a societal infatuation with entertainment over truth-telling.
With television as our primary mode of disseminating information, all subject matter, frivolous and practical, is presented as entertainment, and intellectual discourse is destroyed. This is evident in the evolution of presidential debates as televised and digital media have become more deeply embedded in our culture of communication.
Presidential candidates used to speak to and about one another with civility, and the debates were truly used as a platform for respectful political discourse. A prime example that comes to mind is the exchange between former President Barack Obama and Sen. Mitt Romney during the 2012 Presidential Election. Before commencing the debate, the two politicians engaged in a polite conversation during which Romney even congratulated Obama on his 20th wedding anniversary, as captured by The Wall Street Journal. The candidates went on to have a mannerly conversation, disagreeing respectfully with one another when their political views failed to align.
Nowadays, all the candidates seem to do is slam each other every chance they get — not only on the political level but on a personal one, too. Throughout his 2024 election campaign, Trump has mocked Harris incessantly, purposely mispronouncing her name, questioning her racial identity and even accusing her of being “mentally impaired,” according to various news outlets. Meanwhile, during the presidential debates, Harris frequently rolled her eyes and laughed at Trump’s responses, per The Times of India. The lack of respect on both sides is unmistakable, though I must divulge it was largely egged on by the outrageous behavior that Trump has demonstrated in the public sphere since the 2016 election.
Television is a medium that rewards emotive performances rather than civil discourse, and politicians like Trump and Harris play into their roles as actors and actresses, treating the debates as dramatic productions in order to attract voters. I have no interest in seeing our potential future leaders talk over the top of one another and quarrel like my relatives do at a family reunion — it’s frankly embarrassing to watch. Televised politics bear more resemblance to reality TV shows than civil discourse.
Furthermore, television is based on the rapid production and consumption of content, features that are meant to make media more accessible to the general public by ensuring everyone can understand every news story, regardless of the background knowledge one holds on the topic. However, complex issues often become oversimplified as a result of presenting information in short and snappy televised news briefs, and viewers come away with perspectives that lack nuance and critical reasoning.
Televised discourse has become driven by emotions and quick reactions rather than logic and careful consideration, rendering many forms of digital modern-day media an obstruction to the ability to present political or intellectual content. I prefer to read carefully fact-checked and diligently reported articles about our presidential candidates instead of tuning into distastefully performative debates. I urge you to do the same.
