How to Cover a Debate
Yesterday NPR hosted a debate for the Democratic candidates for president. Among other things, the debate demonstrated worthy aspects of radio as a medium for civic conversation. And you’ll note from the transcript how the nature of radio differs from that of television. Put simply, television is driven by images and sound bites. It’s appeal is almost purely pathetic.
How should print journalism cover such a debate?
That the Washington Post gives us a transcript on its web site is surely a great public service and fulfills the primary purpose of journalism, which is to give people the information they need to be free and self-governing.
Publishing a transcript is exactly how a debate or speech was covered in the early days of journalism in America. Reporters were an invention of the mid 1800s. No one asked politicians questions. Printers–the people who owned and/or ran newspapers–gathered and printed primary source documents.
The internet has made this public service possible and practical again.
I won’t quibble with the Post’s coverage of the debate. It is typical of American journalism in so many ways–good and bad.
Another thing publishing the transcript does: It points out how inadequately a single news article captures a complex event. It points out that journalistic practice constructs a particular kind of reality.
There is no way to accurately represent complex reality in a single news article. Good journalism, like a good conversation, unfolds over time.
