Unhelpful to journalism as it’s traditionally done, at least. But for someone like Ezra Klein, who now fills a hybrid blogger/reporter/columnist role for the Post that didn’t exist even five years ago, political science represents “the most significant untapped resource” for journalists. He and a group of bloggers, reporters, and opinion-shapers increasingly trade links not just with The Monkey Cage but with other poli-sci writers—one of whom, Jonathan Bernstein, landed a plum guest stint at Andrew Sullivan’s The Daily Dish barely six months after he began blogging (and more recently filled in at Klein’s blog). A modest new feature at Salon, meanwhile, suggests another model for how to bring poli-sci insights to a broader audience. The Numerologist uses a chart or graph to make a point that pushes back against accepted political wisdom. (Salon’s News Editor Steve Kornacki said he borrowed the idea from the sports page at The Wall Street Journal, which has been bringing the statistical revolution in sports analysis to a mass audience.)
Beyond a generally center-left perspective, the journalists who have engaged most with political science—including Ambinder, who, six weeks after the Game Change flap, wrote a pair of posts building off evidence, highlighted by Sides, supporting the claim that most “independent” voters aren’t really independent—have something in common: they’re operating under a new model of what it means to be a political reporter, one that allows them to conceive of “news” in a different way. As Anne Kornblut, another Post political reporter, put it, “They’re not aiming for A1 and being asked, ‘What’s new here? How is this going to change the country tomorrow?’ ” Klein is explicit on this point, outlining a role for journalists that sounds as much like teaching as reporting. “I think that we as a profession need to become more comfortable with repetition,” he says. “What is newest is often not what is most helpful for readers.” A case in point: when explaining why legislation is bottled up in Congress, Klein routinely discusses the skyrocketing use of Senate filibusters—a recent and consequential change in the rules of politics that nonetheless doesn’t count as “news” on most days.
That’s not to say that traditional reporting tasks will go by the wayside, nor should they. But even in day-to-day coverage, a poli-sci perspective can have value in helping reporters make choices about which storylines, and which nuggets of information, really matter. For that to happen, political scientists must do more to make their work accessible, reaching beyond the circle of journalists who are inclined to, as Sides says, “embrace the wonk.”
Klein, for one, believes that as academics make more of an effort to put their insights before his colleagues, they’ll find a receptive audience. His colleague Kornblut sounds ready to listen. “We’re on the front lines every day,” she says. “So help us.”

It's not the journalists who are making "wonk" news; or at least it's not their fault, which in turn means that an increasingly political-scientific perspective will not help. The problem is the political consumer and the news producers who force the reporters to cater to them. The question really is, what does the political consumer crave? The answer is embarrassment for the party he or she dislikes, which is why there are two sides--and only two, very oppositional sides--to most political stories these days. People aren't interested in stories that have merit--just look at the crummy magazine articles that surround the checkout lanes at grocery stores. People want filth. Don't send the journalists to political science school; send everyone else.
#1 Posted by Samuel Egendorf, CJR on Sat 5 Jun 2010 at 02:21 PM
I agree with the above comment. There is a reason why Glenn Beck and other Fox News personalities have such high ratings and viewership. The general public views politics as almost a source of entertainment.
There is even a study out there explaining this phenomena (Mutz & Reeves “The New Video Malaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust”
American Political Science Review (2005) ). I read it last year in my undergraduate political science course at UCSD, but basically one of the main arguments was that although many people watch these extreme TV political personalities, they do not subscribe to their ideas. The political attitudes on ideology do not really change, however trust levels of government are affected.
#2 Posted by Adrian Chiang, CJR on Tue 8 Jun 2010 at 03:04 AM
I generate a large number of visits to my political science website on voter turnout (measured in the millions in 2008). And I generate news, such as breaking the 2008 early voting story. But my media work does not help me with promotion and tenure, which is why young political scientists are often warned away from doing service work. As David Adamany noted at the State Politics Conference last weekend on the "Pracademics" panel I organized with Chris Mooney, the profession no longer values service. He found that 8 of 10 American Political Science Association presidents in the 1950s listed public service on their resumes. Only 1 of the last 10 did. Not all is bad as it would seem. There are a number of political scientists who work with the media and are doing important nuts and bolts policy work. We will discuss this issue in more depth and how to encourage political scientists to get involved in service work in a PS: Political Science and Politics symposium early next year.
#3 Posted by Michael McDonald, CJR on Tue 8 Jun 2010 at 02:11 PM
Hi Michael,
Thanks for stopping by! I read some of your work on gerrymandering a few months ago for a post that never got written. Your point about poli-sci shrinking from public engagement is well taken, and has been made before (as in the Jon Cohn piece I mentioned, and also by Ezra Klein). It's great to hear about your efforts to shift the incentives a bit. Even now, though, there's definitely a contingent of academics -- and folks not in the academy who can offer a research-oriented perspective -- who are doing their best to engage. I hope that journalists--and other day-to-day actors in the political arena--meet them halfway.
#4 Posted by Greg Marx, CJR on Wed 9 Jun 2010 at 11:03 AM
I disagree somewhat with Sam Egendorf. People at large may want adversarial political reporting, and there is obviously a very large, deluded audience for Fox News, but not only is there an audience for factual, political science based reporting, there is a huge unmet need for it.
People need and deserve to know how politics actually works. Unfortunately this will never happen on television, which is an entertainment medium. Look at the gimmicky depths CNN has dropped to. I can't stand watching cable and local news. Nonsense is given equal weight to reality, discussions are interruption fests, and no assertion is fact checked. No wonder people are confused, and no wonder ignorant people flock to Fox News. They have a point of view, regardless of how upside down it is.
Sadly, the best political reporting and interviews on TV is done by John Stewart. Someone should give him a 24 hour news channel.
#5 Posted by Jeff Thompson, CJR on Wed 9 Jun 2010 at 05:26 PM
Some time ago, I really needed to buy a car for my organization but I did not have enough cash and couldn't purchase anything. Thank God my mate proposed to get the home loans at reliable creditors. Hence, I acted that and used to be satisfied with my commercial loan.
#6 Posted by George30WILLIE, CJR on Sat 17 Sep 2011 at 10:09 AM
Very often, scholars create the mini dissertation by their efforts. But some of them prefer to order the really good information associated with this topic at the dissertation service, just because it’s easier.
#7 Posted by dissertation, CJR on Thu 28 Jun 2012 at 02:04 PM
Your very good release just about this topic must be free for people, because they require buy thesis service and high quality buy dissertation primedissertations.com service or just thesis summary.
#8 Posted by buy thesis, CJR on Fri 17 Aug 2012 at 01:54 PM