Meet A Lazy Journalist
By her own admission, Katharine Q. Seelye, political reporter for The New York Times, in a Q & A on The Caucus blog:
The Horse Race
Q: I am deeply disturbed by what I believe is true–the press, liberal and conservative–pays far more attention to the horse race aspects of the 2008 primary campaign than it does to the specifics of what each candidate is proposing and how this fits with past actions and statements. Why is that?Jerry Bakker
Grand Haven, Mich.Katharine Q. Seelye, political reporter:
Hi Jerry,
It’s a good question that we don’t stop often enough to ask ourselves. But a recent study has documented what you believe to be true. In the first five months of this year, almost two-thirds of the mainstream media campaign coverage was devoted to the horse race (and subsidiaries thereof, like polls, tactics and fund-raising).
Why do we do it? Lots of reasons. I’ll start with the obvious: We can’t help ourselves! It’s instinctive. The term horse race reflects
what everyone wants to know: who’s winning?Another reason: It’s easier. It takes time and patience to dig through records, to get answers from candidates that go beyond spin and talking points. And often, candidates don’t want to be pinned down, especially on where they will find the money to pay for all of the wonderful plans they are proposing.
But sometimes, the horse race is more than just a horse race. When you see how someone runs a campaign, you can find clues about what kind of people the candidates are, what kind of people they surround themselves with, how effective they are at managing a staff and raising money (a test of persuasiveness, an important political trait).
The horse race is about issues too: Who has a better plan for Iraq? Whose health-care plan will help my family? Whom can I trust? Voters are making those “horse race” judgments all the time, and we try to address them in a variety of ways–in the detailed backgrounds of the candidates’ lives, in our heavy coverage of the
debates, in stories where the reader can compare the candidates’ views on a single subject, the way our own Marc Santora did recently in examining the Republicans’ views on torture and national security.Sure, after the debates there’s an element of “who won?” Like everyone else, we want to know if Obama gave Hillary the knock-out punch that some supporters and commentators in the media have been egging him to do.
But those are all pieces of what makes up the campaign, and the campaign is a race–for the hearts and minds of voters. And that’s a
horse race at this point. It’s where the thrill is, and the mystery. And it counts.
The first three paragraphs give the honest answer. The balance of this represents the rationalizations journalists use to justify reporting that is largely useless to citizens in making real choices about issues and among candidates.
(We can add, however, that tight budgets, tight deadlines, pack reporting, and low editorial expectations also play a big role in producing the degraded pabulum that passes for the reporting of political campaigns today.)
Also notice that for Seelye the horse race metaphor isn’t a trope at all; it’s reality, i.e. has an existence independent of human thought and action. Can’t change reality!
Also notice that she wants to define into the ”horse race” nearly all political coverage of a campaign. This has the effect of making this stuff not so bad because–look!–useful journalism is part of it too!
