Here is a link to a USA Today editorial about candidates' press cooperation-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-10-27-editorial27_ST_N.htm
The editorial refers to 'an escalation of the adversarial relationship candidates have always had with reporters who break unflattering stories that office-seekers wish never became public. In the past, though, most candidates had to deal with all comers — those they liked and those they didn't — or risk failing to get their messages out..'
This is a self serving and distorted comment in several ways. First, candidates DO have a choice today about who they talk to. The editorial goes on to refer to candidates not speaking to certain media outlets or reporters, but the only ones cited are print writers. Print media are rapidly declining in significance, and candidates are being wise to not waste their time on this 'news' source when internet and cable programs reach so many more voters.
Second, there is the ever-present, sanctimonious assumption or declaration that news outlets are, in Fox's words, fair and balanced. Assuming this is true, there is no reason for a candidate to avoid any news outlet- they are all 'good'. But we everybody knows this is not true. Our news outlets are as biased as ever in our history. They are most similar in tone to the newspapers of the 1880s and '90s. In those days, a person could be socio-politically identified simply by asking what paper he read. A person's politics can be immediately deduced by asking what paper or cable show he watches- MSNBC, Fox, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Times. A subscriber to the NYT who watches MSNBC by choice will have very little in common with a person who watches Fox and reads the WSJ.
Third, and most important, the character of reportage has changed. The editorial is right in describing an at best wary relationship between reporters and political candidates, for fear of breaking an embarrassing story. There is also, for politically tilted media, a long history of pillorying the opposition while praising the candidate most conforming to the publication's views. Interviews of length, where a candidate's values and ideas are explored and exposed in the positive sense, have long been uncommon.
But this is not the issue. Reportage has become nothing except a 'gotcha' game, where the reporter feels the job is not complete until the candidate has been caught in some kind of contradiction or embarrassing admission. There is no effort to ask questions about a candidate's beliefs and interests or legislative agenda. There is only a string of insinuating questions on the order of 'do you still beat your wife?' And this exposure does not come simply in a news conference. Reporters shadow candidates where ever they go, so there is a continuous risk without upside to talking to these people.
The editorial also complains of 'ducking' debates. Debates are also nothing more than alternate opportunities to grandstand for yourself and embarrass the opponent. The content is very low, and only occasionally makes a significant difference in a race. That the 'winner' of debates is chosen as well with the sound off as on demonstrates that language content is not what is being received. It is body language, facial expression and other nonverbal cues. In the current political and media environment, I would not 'debate' unless I really had to do so.
Just as a measure of the assumptions and bias in the USA Today piece, 6 of 7 candidates complained of are Republican. Many of the larger newspapers are grossly liberally slanted, will ask nothing but manipulative questions and are not infrequently openly hostile. Why would any Republican candidate talk to people such as that? They quite naturally get their message out through media that reach more people and give them a chance to actually talk about their ideas, rather than playing dodge ball with a person throwing hand grenades.
I don't blame the candidates one bit. The media have every right and responsibility to investigate candidates' truthfulness and values. But that is reportage, not a witch hunt. If media outlets want access to a candidate's opinions and values, those outlets would do well to treat their interview subjects with respect, and let them speak, answering real questions, not manipulations intended to embarrass.
Ted
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-10-27-editorial27_ST_N.htm
The editorial refers to 'an escalation of the adversarial relationship candidates have always had with reporters who break unflattering stories that office-seekers wish never became public. In the past, though, most candidates had to deal with all comers — those they liked and those they didn't — or risk failing to get their messages out..'
This is a self serving and distorted comment in several ways. First, candidates DO have a choice today about who they talk to. The editorial goes on to refer to candidates not speaking to certain media outlets or reporters, but the only ones cited are print writers. Print media are rapidly declining in significance, and candidates are being wise to not waste their time on this 'news' source when internet and cable programs reach so many more voters.
Second, there is the ever-present, sanctimonious assumption or declaration that news outlets are, in Fox's words, fair and balanced. Assuming this is true, there is no reason for a candidate to avoid any news outlet- they are all 'good'. But we everybody knows this is not true. Our news outlets are as biased as ever in our history. They are most similar in tone to the newspapers of the 1880s and '90s. In those days, a person could be socio-politically identified simply by asking what paper he read. A person's politics can be immediately deduced by asking what paper or cable show he watches- MSNBC, Fox, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Times. A subscriber to the NYT who watches MSNBC by choice will have very little in common with a person who watches Fox and reads the WSJ.
Third, and most important, the character of reportage has changed. The editorial is right in describing an at best wary relationship between reporters and political candidates, for fear of breaking an embarrassing story. There is also, for politically tilted media, a long history of pillorying the opposition while praising the candidate most conforming to the publication's views. Interviews of length, where a candidate's values and ideas are explored and exposed in the positive sense, have long been uncommon.
But this is not the issue. Reportage has become nothing except a 'gotcha' game, where the reporter feels the job is not complete until the candidate has been caught in some kind of contradiction or embarrassing admission. There is no effort to ask questions about a candidate's beliefs and interests or legislative agenda. There is only a string of insinuating questions on the order of 'do you still beat your wife?' And this exposure does not come simply in a news conference. Reporters shadow candidates where ever they go, so there is a continuous risk without upside to talking to these people.
The editorial also complains of 'ducking' debates. Debates are also nothing more than alternate opportunities to grandstand for yourself and embarrass the opponent. The content is very low, and only occasionally makes a significant difference in a race. That the 'winner' of debates is chosen as well with the sound off as on demonstrates that language content is not what is being received. It is body language, facial expression and other nonverbal cues. In the current political and media environment, I would not 'debate' unless I really had to do so.
Just as a measure of the assumptions and bias in the USA Today piece, 6 of 7 candidates complained of are Republican. Many of the larger newspapers are grossly liberally slanted, will ask nothing but manipulative questions and are not infrequently openly hostile. Why would any Republican candidate talk to people such as that? They quite naturally get their message out through media that reach more people and give them a chance to actually talk about their ideas, rather than playing dodge ball with a person throwing hand grenades.
I don't blame the candidates one bit. The media have every right and responsibility to investigate candidates' truthfulness and values. But that is reportage, not a witch hunt. If media outlets want access to a candidate's opinions and values, those outlets would do well to treat their interview subjects with respect, and let them speak, answering real questions, not manipulations intended to embarrass.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment