Andrew Conte’s Focus on Media: Capitalizing on obsession with politics |

Andrew Conte’s Focus on Media: Capitalizing on obsession with politics

U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore looks at Fox News coverage of election returns with staff during an election-night watch party, Tuesday, Dec. 12, 2017, in Montgomery, Ala. (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson)
Tribune-Review contributing writer Andrew Conte.

Each day seems like a new episode in a reality television show about our lives.

Americans over the past year have grown accustomed to waking in the morning to see what new twist has taken place in our collective drama. President Trump’s latest tweet might have taunted some foreign leader, embarrassed a member of Congress or called out NFL players for kneeling during the national anthem. We’ve become addicted to following social media for breaking developments, watching cable news shows where people shout about the story of the day, and talking about politics in our free time.

This month’s Alabama special election for a U.S. Senate seat became our latest national obsession. CNN’s John King dusted off his interactive digital maps to break down blue and red counties, and an NPR reporter talked politics with a Birmingham barber . People who barely can name their own state’s senators knew intimate details about Republican Roy Moore and the women who said he abused them as teenagers. I happened to be at a holiday party on election night; friends counted down the minutes until polls closed, then raced to pull out smartphones when the outcome seemed imminent.

Smart national media outlets have capitalized on our obsession.

Prime-time cable viewership on CNN, Fox and MSNBC surged to a high in 2016 by averaging nearly 5 million combined viewers , according to the Pew Research Center, a media think tank.

The networks have responded by trying to turn presidential politics into something that happens every year, rather than just once every four. Sens. Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz continue to debate on television as if they’re still running for president a year after voters went to the polls. Someone should tell them they lost.

Print publications saw a surge in subscribers after last year’s election — as if suddenly, millions of Americans woke up afterward and remembered journalism. The New Yorker had its biggest month ever in January, when it added 100,000 subscribers. The New York Times passed the 3 million mark in paid print and digital subscriptions by February. The Washington Post, The Atlantic and even The Boston Globe set records.

Since HBO’s “Last Week Tonight” posted a YouTube clip of host John Oliver talking about the value of journalism, it has been watched nearly 9 million times. As one viewer commented: “You either pay for journalism or you pay for not having journalism.”

“The Post,” a movie about how newspaper journalists broke the Pentagon Papers story during the Vietnam War, has started getting Oscar buzz a month before it comes out. That should not surprise anyone after the success of “Spotlight,” another newspaper-based movie that won the Academy Award for Best Picture last year.

So, perhaps journalists should be thankful this holiday season for all the attention that has followed Trump’s election and all the fodder he has contributed to our national dialogue. But I worry, too, that we already have reached the point where few of us could survive without our daily fix.

Andrew Conte is the director of the Center for Media Innovation at Point Park University.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.