Media Coverage Just Before an Election
This morning on the way to work, I was listening to FAIR's Counterspin radio program. The interviewee, the reporter who broke the story on "Bush's bulge", was talking about the refusal of major newspapers to cover the story about a bulge that appeared on the back of Bush's jacket in each of the three debates. This is an interesting story in itself.
What really got my attention, though, is the implication---as I understood the reporter---that the media are generally shy of rocking the political boat with a big story just before a major election. Apparently, even one of the guys (and I don't remember his name) who broke the Watergate scandal, when he found out about the pictures of Bush's back-bulge, did not think that he could get the Washington Post, for which he works, to publish the story before the election. There were only a couple of weeks to go when this stuff was really boiling.
Although I'm interested in opinions about the bulge, I'm also interested in opinions more generally about the responsibility of the media when a controversial story seems to break right before a major election.
posted by Unknown @ 5:44 AM
4 Comments:
At 1:43 PM,
Unknown said…
The implication, of course, is that Bush received live information during each debate, and that this information helped him to perform better. Bone conduction is the only acoustic path that I can easily imagine.
Another possibility, though, is that, if Bush were really somehow wired, then someone was collecting telemetry on his heart rate, breathing rate, etc.
In any event, Bush was asked about the bulge in at least one TV interview before the election, but his official story about bad tailoring of his shirt was never seriously challenged by anyone in a major TV or paper news organization.
Is this excusable? I wonder what Curtis thinks.
At 4:00 PM,
cvo said…
As far as the bulge is concerned, it's a moot point since it didn't help him in any way in that first debate. I have heard several theories but one of the most plausible is that he may have been wearing a thin flak jacket for security purposes and was told by Secret Service not to talk about it publicly.
I think if Bush had done well in or won that first debate, the media would have jumped on The Bulge a little more than it did. The Bulge was the source of a few segments on the 24-hour news channels and I know we did at least one segment on it on the Today Show.
Concerning media coverage before an election, it raises an important question about the direction of journalism. In the early years of newspapers, reporters were sent out with an agenda and were ordered or motivated to write with a partisan view or, at the very least, a sensationalistic view to sell more papers. Only after the press' role in the downfall of Tammany Hall and other political scandals did mainstream editors start realizing that an objective press could be a very powerful medium.
Now it seems like we have come full circle and are heading back to the late 19th century partisan press. It's no secret that Fox News has become the tool of the conservative movement of this country despite their "Fair and Balanced" slogan. They will tell you that they are just trying to serve as a counterbalance to the "liberal elite media", but I will tell you that most journalists with whom I have worked have always aimed for the most balanced and objective presentation of the news whether in print or on the air.
Do they have political bias in their personal lives? Yes.
Do they allow that political bias to affect the content of their stories? They try hard to keep it out.
And that may be the problem today. True journalists are so afraid of appearing biased that they are less likely to confront the lies of a politician or corporation. A good example of this is President Bush's oft-used line about capturing 75 percent of Al Qaida since the War on Terror began. That's crap because Al Qaida has grown by thousands of members since 9/11. We may have captured 75 percent of the old leadership, but the organization has more than quadrupled in size by even the most conservative estimates.
What may happen is MSNBC or another 24-hour news channel may attempt to become the "Fox News of the Left". It's already happened in radio with Air America. The only problem with that scenario is that the demographics of liberal, left-wing newspaper, radio station or television network are not near as attractive to corporate advertisers as Rush Limbaugh fans and Fox viewers. News departments use to be "Loss Leaders" that provided prestige to networks and fulfilled the FCC's mandate for broadcasters to serve the community. Now, all news divisins and networks are expected to be money makers and that affects the kinds of stories they do and how they are covered.
Now we focus more on the "sizzle" than the steak. That's sort of what Jon Stewart was trying to say on Crossfire a few weeks ago when he accused the hosts on both sides of being "partisan hacks who are hurting the country".
As someone who would like to see the objective form of journalism rule the day, I am trying to work within the constraints of one of the largest news organizations in the world to make a difference. I push for stories about space exploration, corporate polluters and race relations. It's a lot harder to make a dent in the political coverage, because those decisions are made at a higher level with other producers and correspondents who have been doing it for 20 or 30 years.
I will say that I think the mainstream media learned a lot of lessons from the aftermath of 9/11 and giving the Bush Administration a free pass to do and say whatever they wanted without facing any tough questioning until the presidential election heated up. We'll see if it changes anything in the way the next 4 years are covered.
At 7:20 PM,
R said…
It seems the key is that the FCC no longer takes seriously the idea that their reason for existence is to regulate the use of the PUBLIC radio spectrum, to ensure such uses benefit the public. This started under Reagan, when the requirement to present equal time for both sides of an issue was quashed.
Curtis, I hope you can keep your idealism. It seems to me that a lot of today's media decision makers and opinion leaders started out where you are now, and have become old and cynical. And the young ones just think the Republicans are cool because they are in power, and have been for as long as these guys can remember. Plus, they have to rebel against their hippie parents.
At 6:55 AM,
Unknown said…
Good point, Lark.
I think that Curtis' idea of thin armor seems a reasonable hypothesis.
The bulge issue is perhaps not the best example, but I was hoping to stimulate some discussion about what the media should do in the event of the eruption of a sensational and controversial story right before an election, especially if the story would seem to favor one candidate over the other.
As I see it, the problem is that almost every serious story needs time to develop. Everyone needs to weigh in; evidence needs to be accumulated, and public opinion itself needs time to form. A controversial issue that erupts, say, two days before the general election might push the result of the election one or the other way only because of the story's initial impression. A few days after the election, once the facts become clear to everyone, it could be a bad scene if the final impression is different, and the legitimacy of the elected government is called into question.
Post a Comment
<< Home