The 2006 election season is already kicking into cranium-grinding gear. But before things get too messy, a group of media observers recently asked a collection of seasoned journalists to put aside the minutiae of political reporting for a moment and think about big-picture changes that could improve news coverage in the upcoming campaign season.
A few weeks ago, Barry Sussman and Dan Froomkin, the editors of Nieman Watchdog, emailed past Nieman fellows the following question:
“Do you have any practical suggestions for improving American political coverage in 2006? (For starters, if it helps: Is the press too adversarial, not adversarial enough; what were the biggest shortcomings of 2004 and how can they be avoided this time?)”
The results?
“Some veteran American journalists see the 2006 elections as offering the press a momentous opportunity to revolt against the status quo of spoon-fed sound bites and he said/she said coverage,” wrote Sussman and Froomkin.
What would such a revolt look like?
“Instead of spending time getting reaction quotes, test the veracity and authenticity of the original statement,” wrote Valerie Hyman, a 1987 fellow. “Journalists are under no legal obligation to provide equal space and/or time to opposing candidates.”
“I’d like to see news organizations develop strong investigative units to tackle significant topics, away from the headline of the moment,” wrote Bruce Locklin, a 1978 fellow. “Let the pack chase today’s sensation while the diggers determine what questions need answering and then go get the answers.”
“We need to be using our increasingly scarce resources to cover DIFFERENT political stories,” wrote Geneva Overholser, a 1986 fellow. “Some scandal breaks, and we all pile on, while problems arise elsewhere with no eyes on them.”
Said 1993 fellow Dori J. Maynard: “Journalists need to make sure they are talking with a diverse group of people: the shop clerk, the cab driver, the admitting nurse at the doctor’s office.”
All of which is music to our ears.
Howzabout more pre-election coverage of alternatives to Dems and Reps? As a broadcast reporter for 17 years I was dismayed at the Catch 22 that so-called third parties face: They very rarely register much on election day, largely because people know so little about them. So media don't give them much attention, which of course results in their barely registering -- again -- in the next election.
It would be refreshing to see some major media assume something broader than a two-party paradigm. There are alternatives.
One prospect for coverage that's easy to name is the Libertarian Party. They are the 3rd largest and have been for a long time in terms of members, voters and candidates if I recall correctly. Some of their platform principles seem radical; on the other hand, some of their ideas seem more in tune now -- such as avoiding unprovoked invasions (Iraq) and increasing border patrols.
Why not give them some coverage in depth that includes tough questions but also allows them to answer? Otherwise we're led to believe that the only way to cast an informed vote is to go red or blue.
It just ain't so, and that's a political story that's begging to be told IN DEPTH.
Posted by RetiredRadioNewsman on Thu 8 Jun 2006 at 01:56 PM
In two parts:
Watching the State of the Union, the reporters on CNN actually were talking about Cheney and Hastert's matching ties, and how people looked. It was worse to hear useless drivel like that (much the same on the other networks) than to hear nothing at all, so I watched C-SPAN.
Part the Second
Voting is math. Third parties can not succeed with the current voting system, sometimes called "First Past the Post," "Plurality" or "Lone Mark."
The Libertarians, the Greens, and even David Hume favor something called IRV, which proves that they are all very bad at math.
May you enjoy this page.
Posted by JoshNarins on Fri 9 Jun 2006 at 07:43 PM