Ross Douthat has a good post on why this election has devolved into bickering about lipstick and pigs, pregnant teenagers, and tin-foil hat conspiracy theories. He says it’s not entirely the media’s fault.

Yes, the press feeds on conflict and flees from policy substance, but to a large extent that’s because the public
feeds on conflict and flees from policy substance, however much wonks
and watchdogs would like to think otherwise… I have as much contempt for the way the media initially
reacted to Sarah Palin’s nomination as Ezra has contempt for how the
press covered, say, the "lipstick on a pig" controversy or the
"celebrity" ad. But I also know what’s going on in the newspaper
business these days, and I can read those Times "most e-mailed"
lists and see what stories get read and circulated, and as appalled as
I was by the three front-page stories America’s newspaper of record ran
on Bristol Palin the day after the news of her pregnancy broke …
well, I can see why they did it. And if the high-information voters who
read the Times wanted "all Bristol all the time," imagine if
you’re a paper or a TV show trying desperately to reach an audience of
low-information voters