Mock the vote: what's wrong with MTV's hot new political coverage.

• Author: Georges, Christopher
• Position: Cover Story

"Thank you, MTV !" gloated A1 Gore, in front of 4,000 of America's most connected at MTV's Inaugural ball in January. "Thank you for winning this election. You did it!"

Even during that week of inflated rhetoric, Gore's 30-second MTV love-in wasn't much of an exaggeration. After all, hadn't MTV's year-long crusade of election specials inspired America's jaded youth to unplug their Sony Discmans long enough to tune into campaign '92? Hadn't the music station's funky get-outthe-vote drive prompted nearly a million young voters to register and thousands to volunteer for the campaigns? Hadn't MTV helped make politics hip again? Of course it had. Indeed, the new vice president--in fact, all of America--had much to be thankful for.

And for all that, MTV is now being toasted--even with a prestigious Peabody award for its campaign coverage--as the spunky new kid on the political block. Of course, the music station is still a political lightweight compared to the networks and Beltway pundits, but a worthy sidekick--one they're happy to have tag along.

So what's so troubling about MTV's foray into politics? Actually, it's no one thing--not just the size of MTV's audience nor just what MTV presents--but, like mixing harmless nitrogen with harmless glycerin, it's the combination that's created a political hazard. What exactly is that mix? Consider, first, that the music station boasts one of TV's largest audiences-about 2 million viewers weekly and about 20 million annually, outdrawing, for example, even some of CNN's news coverage. Add the fact that MTV--although it denies it--provides this massive audience with news that is obviously slanted to the left. Then consider that this slanted, widely seen news reaches an audience that is by all accounts politically malleable and detached from news sources other than those on TV. Take into account that this influential, widely seen, slanted news outlet has dedicated itself to becoming over the next few years the number one news source for America's 45 million 18- to 29-year-olds. Finally, factor in that this influential, widely seen, slanted, growing music station has become such a political bigfoot among politicians that President Clinton held his first national interview not with Ted Koppel or Tom Brokaw, but with MTV's Tabitha Soren. The upshot: Despite what the over-50 Washington insider crowd wants to believe, MTV is arguably one of the most influential political players in the American media--but it's only playing half way. If MTV is going to profit from the perks that come with playing in the big leagues--such as wielding the power to influence the opinions of millions of Americans-shouldn't the network bear the responsibility of playing fairly? Of course, the music station and the VJs who run it have the right to be biased, but they also have an obligation: Either provide news coverage with an agenda and admit the bias, or claim a standard of fairness and live up to it.

Yet, far from being held to any standard of responsibility, or taking it upon itself to stick to one, MTV news is treated gingerly--even exalted-by the political pundits and the usually frothing media watchdog groups who, for the most part, seem oblivious to the extent of its impact and bias. The media watchers, explains Jon Katz, media critic for Rolling Stone, "are out to lunch. Apparently they're too busy poring over every line of the op-ed pages to notice MTV."

MTV's defenders retort that characters such as Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson also bring an agenda to their large audiences. But the comparison's a leaky one. MTV's audience, after all, is more ideologically diverse and more easily influenced. And unlike Robertson or Limbaugh, MTV's claims of...