Wednesday, October 31, 2007

PEJ Study: Big Media "tabloidizes" US political journalism

I recently blamed punditry for much of what's wrong with American politics. I decried how the US public tends to read polls and columns to make positioning calculations. Political coverage is confined to candidates with "star quality". Instead of issues, policy, and analysis, we get the tabloidization of American political journalism. Would John Edwards beat Guiliani? Can Hillary Clinton win the center? Can Obama keep the black vote while courting a "white" center? Tragically for America, decisions based on who might "win" rather than who is right or best qualified almost always result in the election of candidates that are neither right nor qualified.


Now --I've got a hard study to back me up. It's by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy
In the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, the media had already winnowed the race to mostly five candidates and offered Americans relatively little information about their records or what they would do if elected, according to a comprehensive new study of the election coverage across the media.
The study has the hard numbers to back up a summary conclusion:
In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found.
Nor is the media without bias. Some candidates can't seem to buy favorable coverage. Others -like Barack Obama and Fred Thompson -seem to be enjoying a honeymoon.
The press also gave some candidates measurably more favorable coverage than others. Democrat Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year—followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running. Arizona Senator John McCain received the most negative coverage—much worse than his main GOP rivals.
I suppose that just proves how out of touch I am. I have yet to hear Obama say anything that was not obviously vetted, coached and rehearsed. As for Thompson --ah well! What can one say about an ugly mug and uglier political philosophy? I might as well shout at a wall. Big Media has already decided that Thompson, the least attractive candidate in any party, is, nevertheless "Presidential" material. How bloody absurd!
The press’ focus on fundraising, tactics and polling is even more evident if one looks at how stories were framed rather than the topic of the story. Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election, while nearly nine-out-of-ten stories (86%) focused on matters that largely impacted only the parties and the candidates. Those numbers, incidentally, match almost exactly the campaign-centric orientation of coverage found on the eve of the primaries eight years ago.
The public, however, shares my sense of disaffection and outrage. The Pew Research Center for People and the Press reports that the public is just as fed up with this evil system as am I. Seventy-seven percent against 17 percent want more coverage of issues and less punditry, bullshit and claptrap. Fifty-seven percent want real debates. Only 42 percent want more news about which candidate is leading in the poll du jour while fifty five percent want more news about candidates that are not deemed by big media to be "front-runners". Among other findings from the PEJ-Shorenstein study:

  • Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.
  • Democrats generally got more coverage than Republicans, (49% of stories vs. 31%.) One reason was that major Democratic candidates began announcing their candidacies a month earlier than key Republicans, but that alone does not fully explain the discrepancy.
  • Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.
  • Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical.
  • There were also distinct coverage differences in different media. Newspapers were more positive than other media about Democrats and more citizen-oriented in framing stories. Talk radio was more negative about almost every candidate than any other outlet. Network television was more focused than other media on the personal backgrounds of candidates. For all sectors, however, strategy and horse race were front and center.
Democrats might be excused for seeming to acquiesce in this tabloidization of political coverage. It was not so long ago that Democrats couldn't buy a good story. Still, media fixation with every aspect of politics but issues is evidence of insidious media cynicism, an entrenched belief that Americans will not read or understand a story unless is has star quality and celebrity in it.

There is nothing democratic about a system inherently biased in favor of the "superstars" of big media --Obama, Clinton, Thomspon, Guiliani. There is nothing democratic about a system in which candidates like Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are discounted out of hand, not because they are not strong on issues but because they haven't gotten benediction from the poohbahs of big media. There is nothing democratic or fair about a system that discounts your preference because you are not or have not read the poohbahs du jour!

I recently endorsed Mike Gravel because Mike has an impeccable record in the US Senate and because his position is real and absolutely right. Sadly, last time I checked, Democratic "procedure", was freezing Gravel out of what passes for "debate". Fortunately, I can still support Kucinich but resent having to make decisions based on a "political reality" that ought NOT to be a "political reality".

Why can't we have a system in which one may vote one's conscience? Why must we have a system in which one worries about "wasting" one's vote on a third party candidate who may be the best in the field. Why can't we abandon the absurd electoral college? Why can't we select the eventual winner based upon national totals via a Borda count, a range vote or some other system that has been shown to better and more accurately reflect the will of the "people".

A better system will encourage a richer field, especially if the reforms should coincide with the abolition of the absurdly long and boring system of primaries. If elections had been conducted on a more scientific basis, George W. Bush could not have stolen the White House --even with help from DieBold. There is much literature available about alternative voting systems. The science dates back, at least, to the 18th Century. Google "range voting", "Borda Count", "alternative voting systems". You'll get plenty of reading material.

It's bad enough that my votes are stolen by DieBold. It's bad enough that the US Supreme Court would presume to anoint a phony President with a creative, "Alice in Wonderland" interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It is bad enough that candidates are bought and paid for because the very expense of a campaign militates against those who may be most qualified. But a system about which it is accurately charged that by supporting either candidate, my vote is wasted is absolutely intolerable. As long as this evil status quo is maintained and supported, America will continue to get --not the brightest and best --but the slick, the bought and the paid for.








Media


Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Graven in New Haven"
www.ilovepoetry.com/viewpoem.asp?id=93660
The origin of the duplicity?

SadButTrue said...

The media acts like a black hood tied over the head of a prisoner - making him a helpless victim. How can one protect oneself when you never know where the next blow will land?

Any political system that merely provides a choice between tweedledumb and tweedledumber binds the metaphorical prisoner's hands as well. Any action you try to take can only cause you to run into a wall, or stumble.

The situation is untenable, not least because the forces behind the demise of freedom in America (Corporate Feudalism) extend well beyond her borders. If you could somehow magically restore honor to government in the US tomorrow, and try to go after the Bechtels and Halliburtons, they would just use the rules of globalisation they themselves created to pack up and move to another more pliant country.

</depressing, isn't it?>

Unknown said...

SadButTrue said...

Any political system that merely provides a choice between tweedledumb and tweedledumber binds the metaphorical prisoner's hands as well.

You're right and everything, it seems, is designed to rob the people of a real choice, a real voice. The media is just part of a bigger problem. A recent contributor to the comments section here recommends a Range Voting System. The debates diffuse issues rather than clarify. The candidates have long ago run out of things to say; there are no new ideas. People are already bored stiff. Millions are spent racking up GRPs (Gross Ratings Points) and "Total Impressions". No candidate will risk saying anything really new or important. It's all a charade.

Anonymous said...

I've just been browsing the Bloggers Choice Awards and I came across ShelleyTheRepublican. It's a fun one, Len, I just had to share:

The particular Satanists responsible for Halloween were called Celts and that’s where they came from. These Celts were pretty much like the Irish today - half-witted, drunken and violent. They was dumb enough to think that the new year started on November 1st because they harvested the crops on October 31st and because they thought that that night marked the fading power of the sun when darkness was gonna take over. If they’d have had a lick of sense they woulda know it weren’t true but that were the case they wouldn’t have been Irish. They would have been Jews.

Rather than worship God they worshipped sticks and rocks and thought the dead came back to life. On October 31st, they believed the dead came back easier because the power of Satan was strongest then. They had some guys called the Druids (and I’m told that’s where the horrible word “dude” come from) do human sacrifices to appease master Satan. They thought that leaving the freshly slaughtered flesh of a baby (or a mother) was a “treat” for master Satan and if they didn’t leave it for him they’d be “tricked”.

How did it happen? That’s a pretty simple question. We let the Irish into America.

Once Jesus assumed the form of a man, He did his best to stamp out this most Satanic of practices and if the Jews hadn’t killed him, he woulda succeeded. Instead, little pockets of drunken, Irish Celts went underground and continued their Satan worship. Christianity did its best to destroy the last of the Celts but like cockroaches, they don’t kill easy. God gave it another shot in 1845 by wiping out their potatoe crops but instead they got on a boat and moved to America. And with ‘em they brought the Satanic holiday of Halloween. Those “Irish need not apply” signs make a whole lot more sense in that context, don’t they? America did its best to stamp out this wicked holiday but then the Irish took over Boston and once JFK got elected, Halloween was here to stay.


How can you compete with that, Len? Give it up.

Unknown said...

damien posted...

...and once JFK got elected, Halloween was here to stay.

My suspicions have been confirmed. LOL good one, damien.

SadButTrue said...

"How can you compete with that, Len?"

You have a point there Damien. Ill-informed dumbassery will always have an audience - something about the lowest common denominator. I think the post you quote might actually be going for the bottom of the intellectual cesspool, but the point remains. Very funny.

Manifesto Joe said...

If I were betting on the Dem race in a purely disinterested way, my money would be on Hillary. But she has damaged herself hideously, in my eyes and in many others, with all the recent waffling and the vote for the Iran resolution. She seems to crave establishment approval.

I remember people joking that Clinton the First was the best Republican president since Ike. I think with a "Hil and Bill" administration, we would see a reprise of GOP Lite. If there's been any year in which the Democrats desperately needed to keep the convention open, it's going to be '08.

Unknown said...

Manifesto Joe said...

Manifesto Joe said...

She seems to crave establishment approval.

Hilary's single greatest accomplishment: she was on the committee staff that drafted: "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, Provisions in the Constitution that are Relevant to Impeachment and Past Impeachment Inquiries" --a fine piece of scholarship. {Nixon's impending impeachment) It's been downhill since then.

Anonymous said...

Len said:
"Hilary's single greatest accomplishment: she was on the committee staff that drafted:.... "

Forgot she was on that team, now I know the real reason conservatives hate her so much...certainly explains allot to me.

benmerc

Unknown said...

benmerc said...

now I know the real reason conservatives hate her so much...certainly explains allot to me.

I'm not too fond of her myself. She's a good Republican. Now that the Democrats won't let Mike Gravel on the same podium with the annointed, we will rally 'round Kucinich if the nation is to have any hope at all.

Anonymous said...

Len again you hit the nail on the head!!!

I am so disgusted with the media and their lack of coverage and disregard of voter intelligence.

The MSM had Clinton as the favorite before she even announce. I often wonder how many of them where asked to promote that idea for her exploratory committee.

With this election cycle being the most important in decades, one would think the MSM could get on the same page as the voters. The primaries are paramount in this election and the issues are not being address. The MSM current fixation is Hillary being piled on by the guys. Well get over it this is an election.

Personally I think the MSM should get out of trying to report real news and politics and do what they do best, Hollywood.

Unknown said...

nytexan said...

Personally I think the MSM should get out of trying to report real news and politics and do what they do best, Hollywood.

As far as I'm concerned the MSM with few exceptions has already gotten out of the "real news" business.

Alas --the "Murrow Boys" may have been the first and last "real" journalists on prime time. Dan Rather was of a younger generation but might have been included in that Pantheon had he not sold out under pressure from the swift boat character assassins.

If anyone has a link to some of Eric Sevareid's great commentaries, please share them with this forum.

Severeid, who left us in 1992, often worried about America's direction. Known for his outspoken, politically "liberal" positions, Severeid, I am sure, would have had much to say about the junior Bush.

Another Murrow, another Severeid, another Cronkite ...But, alas, we are stuck with "stars" not journalists. TV stinks!

Paul Champagne said...

I think the best qualified candidates are probably McCain and Richardson. Neither are electable

Too bad.

Unknown said...

McCain has proven himself to be a complete idiot. Bill Richardson is a good guy...but sadly, he has the non-electable stink on him and that's what the article denounces. Whatever happened to choosing candidates based upon what they stand for rather than whether they are electable or not?

Nelson said...

The absolute, most important determining factor in electing candidates is whether they have seen a UFO or not.

Batocchio said...

Nice analysis of a valuable study.

Unknown said...

liberal journal man said...

The absolute, most important determining factor in electing candidates is whether they have seen a UFO or not.

Good one! That's the kind of stupidity that says more about the media than it does the candidate. Who has NOT seen a UFO?

Batocchio said...

Nice analysis of a valuable study.

Thanks Batocchio and welcome back.