The Press and Political Coverage

My favorite Washington political daily, the Politico, carries a highly interesting look at how the media covers politics and why.

Specifically, they asked some of the smartest press secretarties and former press secretaries in town the following question: "Why does the press cover seemingly trivial matters...?"

One of the best answers comes from former Clinton press flack Joe Lockhart:

The media has become a business just like any other business. The press prints and broadcasts what they think their viewers and readers want to read and see. Successful media executives are no longer measured on the quality of the coverage, but on the number of eyeballs they can deliver, not on breaking news, but packaging news. And in a country in love with reality tv, it should be no surprise that the inane will always trump the important.

Another good answer comes from former GOP Congressman Mickey Edwards

Sometimes it's simply the result of a modern-age self-perpetuating cycle: more news outlets and more of them operating around the clock means more time and space to fill which requires in turn yet more copy which fuels a need for still more copy (to fill still more time and space) at a competitive blog or epaper or (bottom of the barrel) CNN, to which a response is required, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Another former GOP Congressman, Jim Leach, who's now supporting Senator Obama thinks it's the failure of America's "political class" who have failed to produce anything worthy of serious news coverage, leading to a vaccum being filled by trivia.

In contrast, Kennedy School professor Joseph Nye thinks it's fundamentally our fault, although he doesn't fully explain how or why. Perhaps it's because if we demanded more substantial news coverage, even the most profit maximizing corporate news model would provide it?

In short, perhaps we're getting the news coverage we're asking for?

I'd definitely recommend you check out the rest of the responses from former Clinton Press Secretary Mike McCurry, former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleisher and many others.

MSNBC Corrects Course

As you'll recall, MSNBC had lost its way in its political coverage, which was becoming more about the conflicting, abrasive personalities anchoring it than the substance of the stories.

Today, the New York Times reports that NBC (aka the adults in the room) took the helm and steered away from the rocks:

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

This is good news for fans of civilized political debate, regardless of party preference.

On the end of the extreme, no one has ever accused my morning news of choice to be overly sensational.

The Conventions Are Over...

The Republican Convention ended last night, marking the end of the 2008 cycle of conventions.

A few thoughts and observations on political conventions generally.

-Each party only stages one every four years. They're not like reality shows or police science dramas, which seem to dominate the air waves. Watching as much of each as time allows, therefore, seems to be a small commitment for someone who is planning to case a ballot that will, in turn, impact the lives of their countrymen for the next four years and beyond.

-The television coverage of this years' conventions were revealing. The stations that have some sort of moral obligations to cover them (because they broadcast on public airwaves), e.g., ABC, NBC and CBS, carried only the bare minimum, while those who pretty much pay their own freight such as MSNBC, CSPAN, CNN and other cable channels provided more comprehensive coverage. That ABC, NBC and CBS have mostly abandoned their commitment to news has, of course, been obviuos for some time, but this is the most blatant example to date.

-It can be argued that this reflects the decline of a political convention from a place where news really happened, i.e. candidates were actually selected and have become political pageants instead. Still, this is the only time most voters will actually be exposed to the parties' message, unfiltered by the talking heads, for more than short sound bites. This alone means they are still a meaningful part of the political process.

In short, I hope you watched at least as much of them as time permitted. At the very least, you'll know the candidates' basic stories, the issues that matter most to them, and have some sense of what the differences are between the parties and what is at stake in this election.

Sadly, that is a lot more than most voters will have when they go to the polls this November.

One place NOT to get your political news...

Apparently MSNBC is more interested in their on air "talent" than what's actually being said at the Democratic National Convention.

Amid a spate of awkward on-air conflicts among MNSBC anchors at this week’s Democratic convention, some staff members say there are sharp internal disputes at the cable network over whether its opinion and personality-driven political coverage has crossed the line.

So far, the television coverage of the conventions has been fairly sad, with the traditional network news only covering an hour a night, cable and NPR has had to pick up the slack. Part of this reflects the changing nature of conventions from places where news is made as the parties make real decisions to pageants celebrating them. But it also marks the decline of traditional news coverage as something that only happens for a set hour out of the day.

One alternative? C-SPAN is providing gavel to gavel coverage, with no commentary.

Be Skeptical

From my favorite political daily comes the following story regarding unfounded rumors that Senator Obama was being advised by George Clooney on foreign policy:

The Obama-Clooney story was concocted from anonymous sources. Yet it spread throughout the world within hours. It was quickly picked up by The Drudge Report and television networks ranging from Fox News to NBC. The overall result served to bolster Republican candidate John McCain’s dubious contention that his rival Obama is a vapid “celebrity” rather than presidential material.

One would assume that a newspaper of any sort, even an English tabloid, would have some source for such a story, even a poor one. In fact, it turned out not to have any real evidence whatsoever. What's even more alarming, the "real" media turns out to have simply passed the story along with no independent verification.

We saw a similarly shoddy piece of "journalism" from the newspaper formerly known as the "Paper of Record" earlier this year.

The US media was criticized for failing to report on recent allegations surrounding former Senator John Edwards, which turned out mostly to be true. This poses the dilemma about when to report and when to sit on a story.

On balance, though, I prefer to hear accurate news a little later to hearing lies immediately. The press generally can't be counted on to do its homework, though, and will simply pass along gossip to avoid appearing to be out of the loop. It's up to the voters, therefore, to possess the sort of skepticism and good judgment that once could be found in our newsrooms, withholding judgment until all the facts are in.