Take a memo…
Matthew Miller’s essay in the current issue of the Columbia Journalism Review is adapted from his book–The 2% Solution. This essay is two for one: Miller makes some interesting observations about the behavior of journalists and candidates during campaigns, and he makes a pitch for the central idea of his book: Use just two percent of the front page of daily newspaper to publish a fact/stat of civic importance to keep issues before the public even when those issues are not “in the news.”
I’ve already discussed my opinion of the 2% solution. I like the idea just fine–just not on the front page. It smacks too much of raw information and not enough of knowledge or wisdom, and I’m a big believer in Neil Postman’s contention that newspapers should be outlets for knowledge and wisdom.
I found Miller’s stenography metaphor of reporting interesting because it fits nicely with the status quo and fairness biases–two of the structural biases of journalism.
Miller laments that “media norms” keep reporters from pointing out that, sometimes, policy initiatives are offered more in a spirit of contentiousness than in a spirit of problem solving. Further, reporters understand this so-called objective stance (quote both sides to be fair even if one side is full of it or there are truly more than two sides) makes them complicit in such “hoaxes.”
The news media, then, accepts a stenographer’s role in civic discourse. Miller writes:
Conservatives say mainstream media are liberal, and they’re partly right. But that’s not what’s interesting. The interesting question is this: If the media are so liberal, why has America’s political center of gravity shifted so dramatically to the right in the last two decades? The answer is that the news coverage of influential national media outlets is shaped more by stenography than by ideology.
Some journalists will object to the word “stenography,” but I mean it to be descriptive, not critical. “News” is largely defined as what public officials say and do. The poles of debate on major issues are thus set by the mainstream Republican position (today the Bush administration) and the mainstream Democratic position. The national press faithfully reflects these two poles, and the fifty-yard line in American politics is between them.
While stenography as a news value may seem preferable to a situation in which top national news outlets pursue their own untethered agendas, it also brings a clear downside: in times when neither party is serious about addressing major problems, stenography assures that public debate remains impoverished.
I would challenge Miller’s last assertion with this observation: The current media environment, dominated as it is by television, does not allow candidates to introduce fully formed policy and to make well-reasoned arguments for it. Too boring. Where’s the drama, the contention? The press would ignore and/or ridicule a candidate who did such a thing.
Another more important question suggested by Miller’s essay: Where are the reporters who would understand policy and its importance to the everyday lives of Americans?
There’s a related reality to press coverage when it comes to campaigns: if candidates do put forward ambitious ideas, the top news outlets generally aren’t equipped or inclined to assess them. “Asking the political press in the middle of a political campaign to judge the public-policy implications of an idea or proposal is very, very difficult,” says CNN’s Jeff Greenfield. “For one thing, it requires you to have the time to check it out and look at it…And it gets so caught up in the welter of ‘What’s the latest hourly poll out of Iowa?’ and ‘What’s the new ad that’s running?’” Political professionals assume the press is unwilling or unable to explain where truth lies on public policy when they plot campaign strategy. “They’re all about process, and not about policy at all,” says Ed Gillespie, the new chairman of the Republican Party. Carter Eskew, an adviser to Al Gore during the 2000 presidential campaign, agrees: “The daily press doesn’t really have much time to evaluate whether or not the proposals are any good or what they mean.” As a result of all this, the press succumbs to a “he said, she said” form of journalism in campaign reporting.
So we have a catch-22 here.
Be sure to read Jay Rosen’s thoughts on the Miller essay.
Andrew,
I find that you are yet again providing a valuable service to your readers.
“the top news outlets generally aren’t equipped or inclined to assess them.”
Well, they certainly may not be INCLINED to assess them, but one can hardly argue that they aren’t EQUIPPED to do so — unless by their own choosing…
“Asking the political press in the middle of a political campaign to judge the public-policy implications of an idea or proposal is very, very difficult,” says CNN’s Jeff Greenfield. “For one thing, it requires you to have the time to check it out and look at it…”
Taking upon the role of efficiency manager, I would find it hard to believe that they do not have the resources to “check it out and look at it”. Don’t give me that bull that it is very, very difficult. What he is saying is that “it is SO MUCH EASIER AND CHEAPER to parrot the “fluff” of the day, rather than to invest in research into policy issues.
I am disgusted by the fact that the media “print,” or, despite your arguments, “television” cannot afford research into policy issues, nor that consumers will not “consume” it.
For one, I think they expend an awful lot of “resource” on trivia; and, two, I think they are missing out on a vast intellectual audience.
Don’t simply dismiss us all as “Survivor” watchers. Blogs are proving them wrong. They are excusing their pandering to the lowest common denominator. And, I’d have to say Andrew, in your broad condemnation of the POTENTIAL of t.v., you are selling a good many of us short, too. (Apologies if you are only condemning the “execution” of t.v.”.)