Rubbernecking: the act of slowing down in a moment of morbid curiosity or harmless fascination. The phrase was originally coined in the early 20th century to refer to tourists who slow down the normal pace of things because of their fascination with a new environment (looking at you, John Harvard statute tourists). Synonyms include: curiosity delay, gaper delay, gawk block, and Lookie Lou.

We’ve all been there. An accident on the side of the road causes traffic delays, a four-lane highway is bottlenecked, and cars and trucks have to merge left to avoid the three-car pile up surrounded by law enforcement and emergency responders. Onlookers resolute to identify the cause of the accident (and figure out what precisely caused their 40 minute delay) exacerbate the already slow moving traffic. Is anyone hurt? Whose fault is it? How bad do the cars look?

At a fundamental level, rubbernecking is part of human nature. There is a body of scientific evidence suggesting that the physiological reaction we have to being scared or repulsed is similar to the reaction we have when we’re excited. When we slow down to observe a wreck, we do so because we find the wreck fascinating and our behavior easy to justify: Everyone else has slowed down to pay attention to the wreck; I guess I should take a look too.

But unfortunately, rubbernecking is likely to cause more accidents and slowdowns. According to a 2013 study, rubbernecking caused by vehicle crashes and other incidents accounted for 16 percent of all vehicle crashes, amounting to more congestion and more accidents.

The good, and bad, news about rubbernecking is that it’s entirely in control of the onlookers. Fellow drivers can choose to slow down as the car in front of them does, but they can also choose to keep driving at a normal pace.

Which brings me to my point, and my plea: Please do not rubberneck your way through the 2016 election.

It’s tempting. When Hillary Clinton “whips and nae naes” on the Ellen Show, or Donald Trump seemingly removes a baby from his rally, it can be hard not to succumb to the click bait and revel in the absolute absurdity that is the 2016 presidential election.

But the consequences of focusing on the unimportant can be drastic. An analysis featured by the New York Times attempted to track the amount of airtime, understood succinctly as earned or “free” media, each candidate received throughout the primary election. Whether or not that media attention was truly “earned” is a debate for another time, but I’d argue the massively disproportionate coverage of some candidates over others is in part a product of political rubbernecking.

Each outrageous statement made (or tweeted) by Donald Trump has perpetuated his coverage. Each new “Trump gaffe” (which somehow never gives rise to any of the political symptoms usually associated with a gaffe, like a drop in the polls) just drives more media attention his way. And the more that rubbernecking drives attention toward Donald Trump, the more that Hillary Clinton is able to skimp on her own exposure in the media. Secretary Clinton avoided giving a press conference for 275 days until breaking her streak last week.

While the press has been repeating awkward incidents by candidates to fulfill the public’s appetite and focusing on the competitive, “who is up and who is down” nature of campaigns, substance has fallen to the wayside. In a study conducted about the 2016 presidential primaries by the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center, it was determined that only a paltry 11 percent of all primary coverage focused on a candidate’s policy positions, leadership ability, or personal and professional history.

Political rubbernecking is not new to media coverage, but it definitely seems intensified this time around. I don’t argue that every outrageous and seemingly irrelevant statement (or tweet) made by presidential contenders should be ignored. But I do know that the press reports on what the public reads, and there is a serious need to press both candidates on their respective policy positions.

A recent evaluation of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s campaign websites reveals exactly how much substantive policy is (or isn’t) being addressed: the Clinton site details a total of 112,735 words dedicated to 38 policy issues, and the Trump site lists a total of seven policy issues amounting to just over 9,000 words.

This discrepancy feels strange. As a country, we have to consider what factors should be most central to our decision to elect a new president, and in turn we need to hold our nominees responsible for delivering relevant information. As we get closer to Election Day, let’s start having real conversations. Or at least stop rubbernecking the sillier ones.

Caroline M. Tervo ’18, is a government concentrator living in Pforzheimer House. Her column appears on alternate Mondays.