Television has rarely seemed less relevant in terms of a U.S. election.

In no presidential campaign since the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates supposedly changed the face of politics has television seemingly wielded less influence. And yet, rarely has television reflected the twists and turns of the campaign trail with such spontaneity and instant replay.

Political pundits say the U.S. electorate is polarized as never before. Attack ads are all the rage. Polls show the televised debates hardened views, but didn't change many minds."Fake news," such as The Daily Show, is more popular with young voters than real news. And the proliferation of 24-hour news channels, many of them ideologically based or partisan, means viewers are increasingly getting their election news from organizations that validate their own political point of view.

The result is a TV landscape cluttered with confused messages -- and a election that's too close to call. Campaign ads use vivid images that play on voter fears -- wolves lurking in the trees, an ostrich with its head buried in the sand, and voice-overs calculated to raise terror alerts ("Weakness invites those who would do us harm"). The medium really has become the message.

Marshall McLuhan said that anyone who tries to draw a distinction between education and entertainment doesn't know the first thing about either -- a sobering thought in a culture where the distinction between news and entertainment is increasingly blurred.

The first TV programs to feature politicians regularly were a throwback to the early days when TV was little more than radio with pictures, but they introduced the public to the idea their leaders would now be evaluated by a new standard. The early programs -- Meet the Press, in its original incarnation, and Face the Nation, ABC This Week and Washington This Week -- made few concessions to show business, but as the culture changed, the programs changed with it.

In Glued to the Set -- possibly the best book written about television -- cultural historian Steven Stark noted that public affairs and news programs that once favoured sober questioners began to focus more on the tabloid"up close and personal" style in later years. By analyzing and advocating, TV commentators blur the line between fact and opinion in ways similar to docu-dramas. To be popular -- to earn high ratings and keep advertisers happy -- television requires both conflict and personalities.

"As news shows have fallen prey to the demands of the marketplace, they have gone the way of sitcoms and police shows in developing and promoting their 'stars,'" Stark wrote.

Today's commentators and panelists often seem as scripted as those of any other TV genre, with stereotypical debate in sound bites from cliched good guys (James Carville, George Stephanopoulos) and bad guys (Robert Novak, Tucker Carlson) on programs with titles such as Crossfire and The Capital Gang. Commentators argue more and reveal less, and public confidence in the media plummets.

What news producers used to call Old News -- mainstream newspapers, network news and discussion programs -- has been replaced by New News, in Stark's words,"a rough amalgam of talk TV and radio, local tabloid news, rock music, movies and television (sitcoms)." Many Americans consider these new"sources" to be more reliable than the old ones. By the late '80s, Stark noted, America's Most Wanted was affecting American culture far more than Meet the Press.

The mixed messages enamating from the television should be no surprise: There are more channels than there were even 10 years ago. The ability of a president or a candidate to reach a mass audience has been fractured and dramatically diminished by cable. Voters have more entertaining ways to spend their time.

More than 21 per cent of U.S. voters under 30 say they were learning about the campaign from satirical programs such as The Daily Show and late-night TV monologues, according to the Pew Research Center. That's up from nine per cent during the 2000 presidential campaign. Comedy Central even mocked CNN's motto --"The most trusted name in news" -- by hoisting a banner at the Republican national convention that proclaimed The Daily Show as,"The most trusted name in fake news."

The problem, some critics say, is that when there are serious issues, such as war in Iraq, or a sliding world economy, satirical programs such as The Daily Show merely add to the clutter and make it even more difficult for voters to make reasoned decisions.

Stewart's program has come under increasing scrutiny in recent months. Political pundits have suggested that, because of the size of his audience, Stewart has a moral obligation to take a more serious approach toward serious issues. The Daily Show routinely draws more 18- to 34-year-old viewers than the nightly network newscasts. Some critics have accused Stewart of trying to have it both ways by insisting he is a comedian first, while at the same time trying to land interviews with public figures such as Kerry, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole.

Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University and author of the book Celebrity Politics, told The New York Times that Stewart's recent appearance on Crossfire was a classic example of the blurred line between entertainment and news, because Tucker Carlson wanted comedy from Stewart, not commentary ("I think you're a good comedian," Carlson told him,"I think your lectures are boring"). Stewart wanted to comment on serious issues."I didn't realize that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity," Stewart said.

Defenders of fake news say the audience is already attuned to the important news events: viewers couldn't get the jokes if they were unaware of their context. In the information age, it would be next to impossible to get one's news and information solely from fake news and late-night monologues. It would take a determined effort, the Village Voice's Tom Carson wrote last month in a review of Stewart's book, America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction,"and determined effort just isn't your average couch potato's bag."

Voting, however, might be. One of the unknown variables in this election is whether the 18- to 34-year-olds who watch The Daily Show will vote. Television is good at entertaining, not so good at prompting action. That may be one of the lasting lessons from this campaign.