Jackson Free Press

OK, here's a riddle: Why would political candidates talk about issues when the medium reporting them (the media) won't report them in any detail? The Clarion-Ledger today had a report saying that Mississippians want "more details and less rhetoric." Yes, I blame the candidates -- and have regularly on this blog -- for not talking more about issues. But we also have to examine the media's role here: how many publications and TV stations are running in-depth reports on the candidates' issues, fact-checking their statements, turning them inside out? Instead, they're covering the "horse race," as we call it in the journalism industry. That is, they covering the fight, the insults, the jabs back and forth. I guarantee that if reporters would try to sit down more with the candidates and ask them real questions, rather than simply seek out sound bites, then at least of the candidates would respond (at least the ones who have something to say). Worse, the quest for so-call "objectivity" means that if one candidate doesn't want to talk in-depth, the media outlet will shy away from real coverage of the other one in an attempt to seem "fair and balanced." This was a serious problem in the last presidential election and, I believe, why most Americans didn't know the established meaning of "compassionate conservatism" (nothing to do with bipartisanship or moderation) before the election. We talk a lot about how to avoid horce race coverage in journalism school, and then the reporters go to news outlets that tell them to cover the horse race. It's a vicious cycle.

And if the media outlets are waiting until the last week or two to put in-depth reports out there, voters are so fed up with negative TV ads and sound bites by then that they may not care anymore. I don't know, for instance, why The Clarion-Ledger didn't do its series on Jackson either a month earlier or a month later, and instead run special sections on the candidates and investigate their issues for four Sundays running.

Previous Commentsshow

I think this analysis is exactly right and much-needed. There is no original reporting on the candidates' backgrounds, experience or issues. Only complaining about negative TV commercials. This superior posture is undeserved without the work (ie reporting). A major news outlet shouldn't complain about the tone or substance of a campaign - they should change it by doing some hard work.

David

Oct 21 2003

Ladd, I have to agree laziness is part of the problem, though IM-Unprofeeional-O, I think there's more to the problem that that. I speculate that reporters ask soft-ball questions because (a) they don't want to alienate advertizers and readers - that's their meal ticket, after all, and (b) they don't want to "ruin relationships" with politicians - which again hurts their ability to earn their pay. Big Time papers like the NYT and Wash. Post don't find this as much of a problem because they have such a huge readership world-wide that they are less vulnerable to the powers that be. The C-L, unfortunately is not anywhere near so high on the journalistic food chain. If the local pollies don't want to talk, what stories are they going to formulate that Miss readers care deeply about? Hard-hitting investigative journalism on hog factory farming in Nebraska? I know I'm talking way out of my experience, but I think this is a plausible explanation for a non-journalist like me. What do you think, Donna?

Philip

Oct 22 2003

Todd and I were just talking last night about how rich the TV stations in Mississippi are getting off the banal Barbour-Musgrove TV ads. Think about it: Why would the TV media want the candidates to really talk about issues? Then the sound bites might not be so important. Philip, I definitely do not think it's all about laziness, although that's certainly a factor. I think your points are point and, certainly, as media are increasingly corporate-controlled, they have much less of a reason to use additional resources to really do issues-based political reporting. And they're the ones who can afford to! I've seen a number of good pieces about this "Horse race" problem, but they're not all on the Web. (They're in a box marked "grad school" around here somewhere.) Some quick links I found: http://www.apsanet.org/PS/dec01/clymer.cfm http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article402.html http://www.northwestern.edu/univ-relations/media/news-releases/1998-99/*journalism/elections-journal.html http://www.pewcenter.org/doingcj/pubs/cases/seattle1.html

ladd

Oct 22 2003

OK, here's an example of what I mean: The Clarion-Ledger says in the following story that Blackmon visited their office for 60 minutes this week, but we only get a few somewhat juicy comments about the abortion controversy and a few other tidbits. They said she talked about issues -- what did she say? Why not run the transcript of the conversation on their Web site? (I also wonder if the C-L ever interviews public officials on their own turf instead of requesting them to come to them.) I'm sure the C-L will say they will use the hour-long conversation to make decisions about endorsements, etc. -- but the public should get to know more about what was said. Same for mayoral visits, and so on. Maybe their substantive political coverage is it on its way, but they'd better hurry. http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0310/22/m17.html

ladd

Oct 22 2003

The next day, by the way, Amy Tuck visited The Clarion-Ledger's office, and we get several sound bites back at Blackmon. And how about that headline? Tuck: Blackmon offers 'radical ideas' http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0310/23/m12.html From this story, you'd think a primary issue in the state of Mississippi is which candidate supports prayer in the public schools -- which is unconstitutional already. With the poverty, jobs and education issues facing the state, does Ms. Tuck really have time to campaign on such a non-issue? It's not like the lt. gov. gets to argue this before the U.S. Supreme Court. Has anyone seen what you think is a good, substantive, issues-oriented news story in the state of Mississippi during this election cycle? If so, where was it? And I ask this is seriousness; I'm trying to do a media analysis, so please point me toward anything good you've seen so far. BTW, the C-L ran a house ad this week promising poll results on Sunday on the horse races (my phrase), but they didn't mention a word about issues analysis. Can we get a little civic journalism, please?

ladd

Oct 24 2003

On that last story, makes you wonder if Sid Salter was sitting in on it (he seems to be such a Barbour/Tuck fan). I just found out last night who the guy running Magnolia Reports works for - I thought he was just a big Republican, and last night someone told me he works for Amy Tuck. No wonder the coverage over there is so unbalanaced.

C.W.

Oct 24 2003

That's true; apparently the current Magnolia Report editor does work for Amy Tuck. I attended a Jackson 2000 luncheon where Blackmon spoke recently; a gentleman checked in next to me as a reporter from the Magnolia Report. I was later told that he videotaped the whole thing for the Tuck campaign. Of course, both campaigns do that to each other; I just thought it intriguing if a "media outlet" was doing that for a campaign. Ouch.

ladd

Oct 24 2003

Here's a link to The Clarion-Ledger archieve of election-related stories. They seem to be trying to prove that they've done actual coverage of the candidates: http://www.clarionledger.com/news/election2003/index.html But, as I see it, this archive just proves the point I'm trying to make in this blog: It's about the horse race, stupid! Should you be so compelled, look through this archive and see how many stories you find that actually delve intelligently into the issues behind the campaigns. How many question what's behind the sound bites? What specific policy is behind their promises? Who are these candidates, really? And, perhaps most importantly, where are the truth-in-advertising stories that represent the concept of "civic journalism" that Bill Hunsberger talked about in the last installment of that Jackson series? How many of the stories examine the candidates' claims to ascertain what's true and what's not? Then, the big one: Do you feel smarter about the candidates and their issues (not their strategy or their sound bites) after you read the stories? Are you more ready to make important voting decisions than you were two or three months ago? If not, what would it take from the mainstream media outlets to make these campaigns more meaningful for you? Now, write the media outlets and tell them. It may be too late for this election, but we can start trying to fix this problem for the future.

ladd

Nov 1 2003