Finally, Election 2011 is over, and with the boring coverage on local television, it’s a wonder how we were ever able to stay awake for the conclusion. The reportage that takes place around local elections is mediocre, not allowing diverse voices to engage in discussions about ramifications of local elections, especially the coverage of districts that are heavily minority. And when we look at the city of Syracuse area televised election coverage, it could have been called a “few white guys talking politics.”
Coverage and discussion was as filling as a puff-pastry before a marathon run. Everything seen in local television I could read by looking at the politicians’ websites. What we don’t have, (and it’s not the first time I’ve brought this up), are the black and brown faces when it comes down to discussing the ramifications of elections.
Why bother having coverage that excludes some of those who may actually know more about urban politics than the talking heads on our local television screen? What is the significance of how certain election districts vote, and the strength certain campaigns have as they approach the election? It doesn’t matter that they take the airwaves, and since the deterioration of local news coverage, these talking heads usually have very little to say.
Urban people and issues that impact the poor are ignored; as if by some magical spell, our local TV stations left a lot to be desired on Election Night 2011.
I remember 1968 waiting up for election results between Nixon and McGovern — it was exciting. The discussions that took place during Election coverage had become as important as the outcomes of hotly contested races.
In Syracuse 2011, you’ll know more about any hotly contested election campaign while waiting in line in a Top’s, Wegmans or Price Chopper — than from the organizations that claim to have Live, Late Breaking, Local News.
