As the financial markets lie in ruins, Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin are taking plenty of time on the campaign trail to assign blame and issue their prescriptions for what ails the economy. Both Obama and McCain are calling for more oversight of the markets, though the Arizona senator has previously been a strong supporter of deregulation.
Many papers around the country are taking the time to parse the candidates’ rhetoric on the issue—including an analysis of McCain’s struggle to command the economics debate and close reporting of Obama’s renewed focus on the topic. But the Chicago Tribune political staff’s coverage of the economic meltdown has been limited to a series of He Said/He Said articles that report the debate while neglecting the substance.
There are several elements involved in reporting from the trail. Part 1 is what the candidate said. What the opponent said in response is Part 2. But, arguably, the most important component for readers, and the task that falls to journalists, is Part 3: what does it all mean?
So on Tuesday (“Obama, McCain debate economic crisis”), Wednesday (“Obama, McCain exchange blows on economic woes”), and Thursday (“Rivals taking populist turn on economy”), Jill Zuckman and John McCormick dutifully filed dispatches from the trail:
Like the war in Iraq, Obama’s campaign believes it can tie McCain to a struggling economy overseen by a Republican White House. “Too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren’t minding the store,” Obama said.
“Guys and gals, our regulatory system is outdated and it needs a complete overhaul,” Palin said. “Washington has been asleep at the switch and ineffective and management on Wall Street has not run these institutions responsibly and has put companies and markets at risk.”
“I’m here to send a message to Washington and to Wall Street,” McCain told autoworkers at a GM plant in Lake Orion, Mich. “We’re not going to leave the workers here in Michigan hung out to dry while we give billions in taxpayers’ dollars to Wall Street. We’re going to take care of the workers…. They’re the ones that deserve our help.”
“My opponent is running for four more years of policies that will throw the economy further out of balance,” Obama told an audience at Colorado School of Mines. “His outrage at Wall Street would be more convincing if he wasn’t offering them more tax cuts. His call for fiscal responsibility would be believable if he wasn’t for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.”
“The focus of any such action should be to protect the millions of Americans who hold insurance policies, retirement plans and other accounts with AIG,” McCain said in a statement. “We must not bail out the management and speculators who created this mess.”
So we have: “not minding the store,” “asleep at the switch,” “hung out to dry,” and so forth. But what, if anything, do these hoary clichés actually mean? Whose economic proposals are endorsed by non-partisan economists? Which candidate has provided a specific plan that can even be evaluated in the first place? How will these proposals impact most voters?
The problem is that questions like these can’t be answered when the story centers on the debate and not on the underlying issues. During a time of crisis, reporters must must must do more than perpetuate the false balance created when two sets of arguments are presented side-by-side with no evaluation whatsoever. It’s journalistically irresponsible to, over and over, write this kind of story: “Here’s what the candidates are saying, you decide what’s right.”
Deciphering complicated matters like the current financial requires reporting steeped in issue expertise and historical context. McCain’s record in the Senate and his reversal on the regulation issue require close scrutiny, as does Obama’s lack of experience on economic matters. Why not implement a tag-team approach, where trail reporters collaborate with in-office writers who can dedicate their time to calling economists, historians, and or others who can offer legitimate insight on the crisis?
America’s financial situation is dire and confusing, and it probably won’t get substantively better before the new administration takes office. And the current New York Times/CBS poll shows that voters are becoming more interested in measuring each candidate’s economic expertise.
This is why it’s essential for all publications—but especially papers-of-record like the Tribune—to dedicate time and inches to actual issue-based reporting, and get beyond the chatter of the debates.
Katia Bachko is on staff at The New Yorker.