Fame drives modern news judgment

I'm sorry that David Bowie and Glenn Frey died, but I can't say that I'm really affected by their passing. I have a CD or two of Eagles songs, and I'll play them occasionally and might remember that Frey is dead. I don't have any Bowie recordings. I was never that much of a fan.

I've been astounded at the outpouring of pain and grief over the passing of these two famous musicians. Yes, every death diminishes each of us, and these celebrities were part of our lives — some lives far more than others, obviously. Still, I've been surprised at the mourning and tributes to these two. 

I shouldn't be. I still remember the day Elvis Presley died in 1977. I was living in Hamlet, about 75 miles from Charlotte and reading the Charlotte Observer every day. The next day's front page was not just dominated by the Elvis obituary and tributes. The whole front page was dedicated to Elvis, as was the second page, the third and all the rest in the front section. A day later, readers received a new round of Elvis tributes and updates. And the day after that and the day after that.

I still think of that week as when serious journalism stopped being serious, and the whole country's decline into celebrity worship began. The Founding Fathers did not create the First Amendment to protect newspaper publishers' right to print all the news there ever can be about celebrity singers. The First Amendment protects the press because, in the naive world of the 1780s, it was thought that democracy depended upon an informed electorate, and a vigorous, independent press was necessary to provide the information voters needed.

And now we have "reality" shows starring celebrities who are adored because they are famous and presidential debates that are not debates at all, just entertainment for the masses who don't understand or care about the major issues of the day, but they love a good fight. Television, the medium that gave us rasslin', is now giving us presidential "debates."

Presidential debates serve voters well

The first voting of the 2012 presidential election cycle comes Tuesday in Iowa, and the competition only escalates from there.

This nomination cycle has been different from past years in an important and, it seems to me, beneficial way. The eight candidates for the GOP nomination have met in an unprecedented number of debates, giving voters nationwide (not just in Iowa or New Hampshire) a look at the candidates and an opportunity to hear their views and see how they handle questioning. Debating is not managing the government, but the process does give some insight into the candidates' demeanor, intelligence and personalities. Overall, it's been a positive experience for the electorate. Although I have watched only segments of several debates, I have seen enough to form opinions about the candidates. In the 24/7 cable news universe, it has been impossible to escape talk about and analysis of the Republican debates, and that's a good thing. The more voters know about the candidates, the better they will be able to cast wise votes.

There has been another benefit to the increase in debate dates: Candidates have spent less money on campaign advertising. Compared to earlier nomination cycles, campaign spending is way down. Candidates have relied more heavily on what publicists call "free media" — the publicity you don't have to pay for. This should be a plus for voters, who will get more balanced information about candidates from their debates and less misinformation from misleading campaign advertising.

Whoever gets the Republican nomination (and we might know who that will be by the end of this month) should challenge President Obama to a series of debates, similar to the GOP debates we've witnessed through the latter half of 2011. Debates between the presidential nominees have been rare, one to four per election in recent years, and these have mostly been inconclusive debates in which both candidates resolutely sought to avoid mistakes. Ten or 20 debates would serve the electorate better and would reduce the need for campaign advertising. The president will say he doesn't have time for so many debates (no incumbent would admit to having time to spare), but both candidates should make time within their campaign schedule to provide American voters the opportunity to assess the differences between the candidates. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be running.