Nothing makes a reporter cringe more than a critic’s blanket statement about “the media” that begins with an assumption that all reporters march in lockstep, taking their directives from some Central Media Brain that dictates how stories are to be covered. Reality, as it almost always is, is a little more complicated than that—but nuance doesn’t play well to partisan audiences, which just so happens to be the kind of audience that eats charges like this up. The fact is, some reporters are liberal, some are conservative, and some are just plain bad. (Most, however, are dedicated, imperfect souls doing a very difficult job.)
That said, there are times when reporters—particularly political reporters—fall into the trap of relying on conventional wisdom, and allow their work to be driven by preconceived notions of who or what a politician is, even if those notions are vastly oversimplified and even inaccurate. And the more these ideas show up in print, the more the world of political reporting coalesces around them. The pack is a powerful thing.
Political reporting too often paints one-dimensional portraits of politicians in order to fit their personalities into tidy little boxes suitable for the daily deadlines. Take Al Gore, for instance. Admittedly, he made himself a pretty easy target in the 2000 presidential race—all stiffness and sighs and ham-handed calculation—but in many cases, reporters failed to push beyond the obvious.
In the September/October 2000 issue of CJR, Jane Hall dissected the coverage of Gore, referring to a study by the Pew Research Center and the Project for Excellence in Journalism that found that during five different weeks between February and June 2000, “a whopping 76 percent of the coverage included one of two themes: that Gore lies and exaggerates or is marred by scandal. The most common theme about Bush, the study found, is that he is a “different kind of Republican.”” As Bob Somerby has pointed out, in August 2000, The Financial Times wrote that “The Gore media…sometimes appears to step over the line in its pursuit of critical coverage,” and that The Washington Post’s Ceci Connelly, The New York Times’ Katharine Seelye, and the AP’s Sandra Sobieraj were “perhaps the most influential reporters on the Gore campaign…They can also be the most hostile to the campaign, doing little to hide their contempt for the candidate.”
Another example of the political press’s collective personal disdain for Gore came during the Democratic debate at Dartmouth College in 1999, where, as Time magazine pointed out, “The 300 media types watching in the press room at Dartmouth were, to use the appropriate technical term, totally grossed out by [him]…Whenever Gore came on too strong, the room erupted in a collective jeer, like a gang of 15-year-old Heathers cutting down some hapless nerd.” Did that animus translate into negative coverage? Google some stories from the 2000 campaign and you tell me.
But why all this focus on Gore, when surely other politicians—yes, including president Bush—have been unfairly painted with the same overly broad brush? It’s all due to a little item by Dana Milbank in Wednesday’s Washington Post, where he recycles all that was rotten in the coverage of Gore in 2000. You remember the script: Gore is “cold.” Gore is “stiff.” Gore is “pretentious.” While he at times was all these things, many reporters covering the campaign seemed to delight in these caricatures, and as a result, they got played to the hilt.
Milbank gives us an account of a recent speech by Gore that reads almost like a parody of everything we read about the candidate back in ‘00.
Milbank said that during the speech, Gore “waxed esoteric,” “waxed erudite,” and “waxed informed,” as if these might be bad things to have happen during a speech. Milbank then quotes several audience members who gush over how smart Gore is, concluding that “therein lies a problem for the Gore ‘08 bubble.” Can’t be too smart, now, or else you’ll look like an egghead, right?
It's funny, too, that Milbank wrote his column around an account of a speech where Gore was received with enormous interest and enthusiasm. Imagine how he would have skewered Gore if the audience had appeared bored or alienated! But a warm and friendly reception didn't deter Milbank from writing a column based on his preconceived image of Gore's inability to connect with audiences.
Posted by kweberlit
on Thu 31 May 2007 at 03:34 PM
Great article but confusing last sentence - since the press can't do better than rehashing old stories they themselves made up, the rest of us would be better off if All Gore didn't run for president? I hope he runs and that Mr. McLeary learns to deal with lousy journalists like Milbank.
Posted by conccitizen
on Thu 31 May 2007 at 05:42 PM
The problem is that for the Kewl Kids, the pack mentality will prevail no matter who runs. Just look at the fawning going on this week over Fred Thompson. How America needs a tough, downhome guy like Fred.
Tell me, what has Fred ever done tough in his life? He took his deferments and ducked Vietnam, he was a Washington lobbyist, took the exact same character role over and over as an actor, dumped the first wife for the trophy wife and created a myth of the good 'ol boy with the red pickup truck when running for Senator, even though he only bought the truck for the election and only drove it when the media was around. Where's the tough character building life story that he supposedly represents? I don't see it, do you?
The pack only wants a good storyline. To do actual reporting would involve real work. Why should they start doing legitimate journalism now when just reciting the same old story works so well?
Posted by not the senator
on Fri 1 Jun 2007 at 10:22 AM
"Nothing makes a reporter cringe more than a critic's blanket statement about "the media" that begins with an assumption that all reporters march in lockstep, taking their directives from some Central Media Brain that dictates how stories are to be covered."
I have never understood why journalists continue to allow their credibility to erode by refusing to acknowledge that there is, in fact, some basis for this statement. I think few would deny that for the big stories, everyone is pretty much feeding out of the same news trough of AP stories, and ledes developed by the AP, NY Times, and Wash Post. Am I wrong? (Steve Boriss, The Future of News)
Posted by Steve Boriss
on Fri 1 Jun 2007 at 10:33 AM
Yeah... The biggest problem Al Gore has is that press is gunning for him... RIGHT... And OJ is still looking for Nicole's real killer...
Anybody who believes this crapola should talk to me... I've got a great deal on a nice bridge In Brooklyn that I love to share!
Maybe before Gore runs, he ought to get his publisher to buy him some "bad press offset credits"... Just like he gets his handlers to buy "CO2 offest credits" in order to allow him to zip around in his private jet and to allow him to rack up a $30,000 utility bill in the largest of his mansions...
Saving the environment with every mile he smokes through the stratosphere, of course...
That way, when Gore claims to have invented the telephone, or to have been the inspiration for "Casablanca" (or whatever screwy story he comes up with next)- he can apply the credits to offset the mean, mean press who hates him so...
Posted by padikiller
on Sat 2 Jun 2007 at 10:23 AM
If there is no Central Media Brain, then how come the mainstream reporters, newspapers, talking heads, etc., all have the same exact points of view, all within polite acceptable limits, true liberals are never heard, all ignore the exact same facts and views which depart from their received wisdom, all attack anyone who attempts to point this out and all completely ignore criticism and continue with their preconceived fables regardless of any facts?
Posted by ejs
on Fri 15 Jun 2007 at 01:56 PM