What is Left is the Cliffs Notes of News

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 3:08 AM on April 28, 2008.

Time for a quick quiz. Question #1: when Barack Obama campaigned in Altoona, Pa., a few weeks ago, what was his bowling score? And question #2: name one thing — anything — about Joe Biden’s healthcare plan.

Elizabeth Edwards makes the point today that, thanks to media coverage, we can all immediately answer the first, and struggle to answer the second.

For the last month, news media attention was focused on Pennsylvania and its Democratic primary. Given the gargantuan effort, what did we learn?

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. After having spent more than a year on the campaign trail with my husband, John Edwards, I’m not surprised.

Why? Here’s my guess: The vigorous press that was deemed an essential part of democracy at our country’s inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional articles. I am not suggesting that every journalist for a mainstream media outlet is neglecting his or her duties to the public. And I know that serious newspapers and magazines run analytical articles, and public television broadcasts longer, more probing segments.

But I am saying that every analysis that is shortened, every corner that is cut, moves us further away from the truth until what is left is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call strobe-light journalism, in which the outlines are accurate enough but we cannot really see the whole picture.

Edwards also cited a report from the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, which found that in the early months of this year — when Iowa, New Hampshire, Super Tuesday states and others were voting — 63% of campaign coverage highlighted political strategy, and 15% focused on the candidates’ ideas and proposals.

It’s a multi-faceted problem.

One of my favorite all-time moments of political media coverage came about a year ago, when Al Gore appeared on “Good Morning America” to talk about his book, “Assault on Reason.” The book, which I loved, is principally about to raise the level of debate in the country, and the ways in which the media is failing to even try to maintain an informed electorate.

ABC’s Diane Sawyer’s first question was, “You’re not going to tell me again that you have no plans to run, are you?” When Gore tried to explain that his book had nothing to do the campaign, Sawyer re-asked the question three more times, lowering the level of the discourse while interviewing an author whose book was about raising the level of the discourse.

She was basically using the book as a script. At one point, she asked Gore, “Again, not to come back to this and fall into your thesis that the press only wants the horserace of the political campaign, but one way–” at which point Gore interrupted, “But back to the horserace.” (Whenever the camera turned to Gore, the chyron read, in all caps, “Al Gore on the attack: Will he run for the White House?” Behind Gore and Sawyer, a giant screen showed a graphic: “The Race to ‘08.”)

And that was 11 months ago. The media’s efforts have not improved in the interim.

In Edwards’ NYT piece, she added, “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.” I’m not entirely sure if that’s true. If people have Internet access, searching out detailed, substantive information has never been easier. If they don’t have access, a local library offers it for free.

The broader point, though, is that those who do want detailed, substantive information have to circumvent the very news outlets that are supposed to keep them informed. Those who take their responsibilities as a voter seriously have come to realize that watching CNN (or any of the networks) for a couple of hours a day won’t actually keep them informed in any meaningful way — though they’re bound to hear about Obama’s bowling, Clinton’s laugh, Edwards’ haircuts, etc.

Edwards’ take on the future is discouraging.

Indeed, we’ve heard that CBS may cut its news division, and media consolidation is leading to one-size-fits-all journalism. The state of political campaigning is no better: without a press to push them, candidates whose proposals are not workable avoid the tough questions. All of this leaves voters uncertain about what approach makes the most sense for them. Worse still, it gives us permission to ignore issues and concentrate on things that don’t matter. (Look, the press doesn’t even think there is a difference!)

I was lucky enough for a time to have a front-row seat in this campaign — to see all this, to get my information firsthand. But most Americans are not so lucky. As we move the contest to my home state, North Carolina, I want my neighbors to know as much as they possibly can about what these men and this woman would do as president.

If voters want a vibrant, vigorous press, apparently we will have to demand it. Not by screaming out our windows as in the movie “Network” but by talking calmly, repeatedly, constantly in the ears of those in whom we have entrusted this enormous responsibility. Do your job, so we can — as voters — do ours.

That sounds about right, except I have one nagging concern — if a news outlet decided to reshuffle its priorities, and mention Obama’s bowling score in passing while emphasizing serious policy discussions, I’m not at all sure Americans would watch.

The media is a business. CNN, MSNBC, and the like put on programming that will in turn boost ratings that will in turn make money. I can just imagine the promo: “Tonight, in a CNN special prime-time report, Chris Dodd’s cap-and-trade proposal. Who would it help? How much would it cost? We ask policy experts who’ll set the record straight. Tune in…” I have a hunch the local public access channel would have higher ratings.

So, what’s the answer? I have no idea, but the media’s reach is diminishing, the electorate isn’t any better informed, and the political process is focusing less and less on issues that matter.

Tagged as: media, elizabeth edwards, al gore, politics, journalism