As Brad DeLong puts it...
Published by Panda on Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 7:35 PM"Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?"
That's how Brad DeLong ends a significant number of his posts. But it's true. To a large extent, I feel like the press corps is gradually succumbing to a strategy of appealing to the lowest common denominator. In the US, that LCD is very, very low and perhaps getting lower by the day. To a large degree, it's why I've totally given up on primary coverage. It's also why some of Obama's rhetoric resonates with me. But I digress.
I may have given up on primary coverage, but I haven't given up on the meta-coverage. To that effect, I was heartened by the recent Op-Ed from Elizabeth Edwards in the NYTimes. Here are some selected passages:
FOR the last month, news media attention was focused on Pennsylvania and its Democratic primary. Given the gargantuan effort, what did we learn?Amen to Elizabeth Edwards. If only more opinion articles were dedicated to topics such as these, rather than the meaning and context of misspoken words, than I'd be a much happier consumer of MSM reporting.
Well, the rancor of the campaign was covered. The amount of money spent was covered. But in Pennsylvania, as in the rest of the country this political season, the information about the candidates’ priorities, policies and principles — information that voters will need to choose the next president — too often did not make the cut.
...
The problem today unfortunately is that voters who take their responsibility to be informed seriously enough to search out information about the candidates are finding it harder and harder to do so, particularly if they do not have access to the Internet.
Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe Biden’s health care plan? Anything at all? But let me guess, you know Barack Obama’s bowling score. We are choosing a president, the next leader of the free world. We are not buying soap, and we are not choosing a court clerk with primarily administrative duties.
What’s more, the news media cut candidates like Joe Biden out of the process even before they got started. Just to be clear: I’m not talking about my husband. I’m referring to other worthy Democratic contenders. Few people even had the chance to find out about Joe Biden’s health care plan before he was literally forced from the race by the news blackout that depressed his poll numbers, which in turn depressed his fund-raising.
And it’s not as if people didn’t want this information. In focus groups that I attended or followed after debates, Joe Biden would regularly be the object of praise and interest: “I want to know more about Senator Biden,” participants would say.
...
Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?
The decision was probably made by the same people who decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate. Articles purporting to be news spent thousands upon thousands of words contemplating whether he would enter the race, to the point that before he even entered, he was running second in the national polls for the Republican nomination. Second place! And he had not done or said anything that would allow anyone to conclude he was a serious candidate. A major weekly news magazine put Mr. Thompson on its cover, asking — honestly! — whether the absence of a serious campaign and commitment to raising money or getting his policies out was itself a strategy.
...
A report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy found that during the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, 63 percent of the campaign stories focused on political strategy while only 15 percent discussed the candidates’ ideas and proposals.
As Brad DeLong puts it...
"Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?"
That's how Brad DeLong ends a significant number of his posts. But it's true. To a large extent, I feel like the press corps is gradually succumbing to a strategy of appealing to the lowest common denominator. In the US, that LCD is very, very low and perhaps getting lower by the day. To a large degree, it's why I've totally given up on primary coverage. It's also why some of Obama's rhetoric resonates with me. But I digress.
I may have given up on primary coverage, but I haven't given up on the meta-coverage. To that effect, I was heartened by the recent Op-Ed from Elizabeth Edwards in the NYTimes. Here are some selected passages:
blog comments powered by Disqus
That's how Brad DeLong ends a significant number of his posts. But it's true. To a large extent, I feel like the press corps is gradually succumbing to a strategy of appealing to the lowest common denominator. In the US, that LCD is very, very low and perhaps getting lower by the day. To a large degree, it's why I've totally given up on primary coverage. It's also why some of Obama's rhetoric resonates with me. But I digress.
I may have given up on primary coverage, but I haven't given up on the meta-coverage. To that effect, I was heartened by the recent Op-Ed from Elizabeth Edwards in the NYTimes. Here are some selected passages:
FOR the last month, news media attention was focused on Pennsylvania and its Democratic primary. Given the gargantuan effort, what did we learn?Amen to Elizabeth Edwards. If only more opinion articles were dedicated to topics such as these, rather than the meaning and context of misspoken words, than I'd be a much happier consumer of MSM reporting.
Well, the rancor of the campaign was covered. The amount of money spent was covered. But in Pennsylvania, as in the rest of the country this political season, the information about the candidates’ priorities, policies and principles — information that voters will need to choose the next president — too often did not make the cut.
...
The problem today unfortunately is that voters who take their responsibility to be informed seriously enough to search out information about the candidates are finding it harder and harder to do so, particularly if they do not have access to the Internet.
Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe Biden’s health care plan? Anything at all? But let me guess, you know Barack Obama’s bowling score. We are choosing a president, the next leader of the free world. We are not buying soap, and we are not choosing a court clerk with primarily administrative duties.
What’s more, the news media cut candidates like Joe Biden out of the process even before they got started. Just to be clear: I’m not talking about my husband. I’m referring to other worthy Democratic contenders. Few people even had the chance to find out about Joe Biden’s health care plan before he was literally forced from the race by the news blackout that depressed his poll numbers, which in turn depressed his fund-raising.
And it’s not as if people didn’t want this information. In focus groups that I attended or followed after debates, Joe Biden would regularly be the object of praise and interest: “I want to know more about Senator Biden,” participants would say.
...
Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?
The decision was probably made by the same people who decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate. Articles purporting to be news spent thousands upon thousands of words contemplating whether he would enter the race, to the point that before he even entered, he was running second in the national polls for the Republican nomination. Second place! And he had not done or said anything that would allow anyone to conclude he was a serious candidate. A major weekly news magazine put Mr. Thompson on its cover, asking — honestly! — whether the absence of a serious campaign and commitment to raising money or getting his policies out was itself a strategy.
...
A report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy found that during the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, 63 percent of the campaign stories focused on political strategy while only 15 percent discussed the candidates’ ideas and proposals.