Comments
NICK’S VIEW - For years, I have been struck by the imbalance in news coverage between serious candidates and shallow ones. I have long deliberated why superficial political contestants dominate media attention and turn politics into a spectacle, while serious, meticulous contenders are pushed aside.
Dan Rosenfeld, veteran civic leader and nationally recognized urban developer, responded to one of my CityWatchLA articles by asking "why foolish antics earned one mayoral candidate free publicity and viability while rivals, such as Adam Miller, an accomplished entrepreneur and proven leader, struggle for similar exposure?". He continued, "Our current mayoral election is a prime example. With a MAGA buffoon grabbing much attention, the press looks to extreme "right and left-wing" alternatives, but never searches for a candidate of the center, which many of us want. And the city needs."
Biased or lazy press focusing into extreme or foolish antics in a campaign is not a new phenomenon. Trump and Schwarzenegger are recent showboats who got immeasurable free press coverage despite with no apparent civic credentials.
Back in the campaign for Mayor in 1993, the Los Angeles Times ran a story in early February, long before the citizens had focused on the race, that read. Right vs Left. The race is between Republican Richard Riordan and Democrat Michael Woo, with their pictures on the front-page, upper fold. The paper ignored us or gave perfunctory coverage to candidates such as councilmen Joel Wachs and Nate Holden, Assemblyman Richard Katz, Deputy Mayor under Mayor Tom Bradley Linda Griego, Ambassador to Mexico Julian Nava and me, a businessman/engineer for over 25 years, Board of Zoning Appeals and Metro Board member for over 15 years.
It is true, shallow candidates often rise to the top because of abundant publicity—and it is not by accident. We are in the age of ‘infotainment,’ a description for the combination of information and entertainment. Facts and information are combined with entertainment to hold audiences. Most major news outlets, including cable networks and digital platforms, rely on this model to build, capture, and keep attention—not just to inform.
A candidate who delivers brazen and outrageous remarks, who whips up conflict, or performs capriciously, provokes interest, creates amusement, or shock, and drives up clicks, views, and social media shares. By contrast, a serious candidate offering subtleties on governance, tax policy, or infrastructure, is less likely to have the sudden impact that keep viewers from changing the channel or scrolling away.
Bombastic candidates thrive on the conflict and drama that sustain a sensationalist narrative. By contrast, serious candidates focused on long-term solutions rather than daily political theater are often overlooked because substance is hard to sell. It lacks the tension that the media rewards.
News space is restricted to 45-second bites on television and under 300-characters for posts. The way news is consumed today makes it difficult to explain intricate issues. But not for the shallow contender who leans on symbolic and provocative slogans.
In our modern elections the political system rewards attention. And the public often gets what the system produces—shallow leaders amplified by the media. Substantive candidates and issues struggle to complete.
Certainly, the news media, which is always aiming at maximizing circulation, takes advantage of the sensational political scenario offered by publicity seeking candidates. Urgency and conflict, the bread and butter of these candidates, sell papers and drives traffic. Serious political aspirants must often choose to mimic the circus or remain invisible under the evolving news system.
So, it really comes down to this: the voter must understand that the gap between campaigning and governing is enormous. A leader running a modern government entity must understand budgets, regulations, legal constraints, interagency coordination, and long-term planning. Governing is a craft, not a performance.
Choosing serious candidates strengthens democracy in ways that go beyond personality or style. It affects how well government functions, how stable it remains, and how much trust citizens place in it. Such leaders produce better outcomes, not better optics, by consulting experts, understanding implementation challenges, weighing tradeoffs, and avoiding impulsive swings.
It is the serious candidate who can stabilize the political environment, compromise, and build coalitions. Through good governance, destabilizing issues can be de-escalated, making democracy more resilient during crises. As always, it is during crises that shallow leadership is fully exposed.
Emotionally engaging candidates can certainly win elections. Short on governing skills and long on public exposure, we have seen how they can undermine independent agencies, attack regulators, weaken courts, and politicize the civil service by treating institutions as obstacles rather than safeguards. Institutions matter. They keep democracy stable. When they are weakened, the entire system becomes more fragile.
My years in politics have taught me that one of democracy’s greatest responsibilities lies in how voters judge candidates. Careful evaluation is not just a personal virtue; it is a civic duty. Voters must choose competence over charisma and substance over spectacle. Look beyond emotional appeals, catchy slogans, and empty mantras. Choose integrity over theatrics. A charismatic but shallow politician may win your emotions, but can that person protect your city, your future?
Today more than ever, fragmented information systems and uncertain times fuel emotional politics and capture voters’ attention. In the drive to win, the candidate who lacks a solid grasp of government, has limited awareness of current political events, and cannot assess the consequences of policy choices may still prevail by using outrage to attract media coverage.
We should recognize that candidates who rely on personality-driven or sensational messaging instead of governance-focused communication may be less equipped to make sound decisions, without implying that they lack intelligence or good intentions.
The ancient Greek philosopher, Plato, said it first: “The man who is wise must not be ruled by the man who only seems wise.”
(Nick Patsaouras is a civic leader and a longtime public advocate. He ran for mayor of LA in 1993 and is the author of the book "The Making of Modern Los Angeles")
