USA Today’s Mark Memmott took on the media beat in early 2004, focusing on the press’s coverage of the election campaign. Since joining USA Today in 1984, Memmott has served in many capacities, editing and reporting for the Money, News, and World sections, duties that led to five trips to Afghanistan and one to Iraq. CJR Daily interviewed him January 20, just prior to the president’s inaugural address.
Thomas Lang: How do you deal with the inherent conflict of being a media reporter at a newspaper? How can you objectively and aggressively report on your own employer?
Mark Memmott: USA Today pays me. That raises a conflict. No way around it. You just have to do the best you can to set that aside and ask the kinds of questions you think you would of any other company, that your competitors would ask and that your readers would appreciate seeing answered. When I’ve had to write about the paper, I’ve sometimes said to the editors something like this: “I need to ask this question because others are going to and we don’t want to look like we’re ignoring it. Plus, we want to show readers that we’re being transparent.” It’s similar to the argument reporters often make when calling agencies or companies that are embroiled in controversy: “It’s in your interest to tell me your side of the story.” That said, I’m sure every media writer is open to criticism from outside for not being aggressive enough about reporting what’s going on in his or her newsroom. And if we were all honest, I bet we’d admit that there’s some truth to the charge.
TL: You wrote an article Wednesday about the decision by the National Election Pool consortium to release all the data that fed into the controversial Election Day exit polls. This is an action that the mainstream media, Democratic politicians, and the blogosphere have been screaming for since Election Day. What’s the significance of the release and who’s responsible for making it happen?
MM: I think the NEP mostly did what its members probably wanted to do all along — which means no one is really responsible for “making it happen.” They’ve released the same type of data they always do. In this case, that’s about 70,000 questionnaires that were completed by voters on Election Day and the mountain of data about issues, demographics and voting patterns that they’ve always given to researchers by mid-January or so following an election. What wasn’t certain, and what they may have been prodded into doing by all the criticism of the “mistakes” made in the exit polls on Election Day, was whether they would release the report from their pollsters about “what went wrong.”
The significance of getting that second report is this: It may prompt further discussion by the media about the value of exit polls for reporting on Election Day and that night. If experienced pollsters who were brought in to “fix” past problems still ran into enormous difficulties getting valuable information to the media that day, then maybe it’s time for the networks and others to talk about relying on exit poll data more for the kind of information that researchers say they deliver best — post-election retrospectives on the issues that drove voters’ decisions.
The NEP hasn’t, by the way, satisfied everyone by a long shot. Its members say they don’t know what the “raw data” are that some in the blogosphere and elsewhere have been clamoring for. Don’t be surprised if there are some angry folks.
TL:: President Bush has made it clear that Social Security and tax reform will be at the top of his agenda for his second term. Is the political press — notoriously filled with economic novices — prepared to deal with the administration’s press machine, given the arcane nature of these issues for most reporters?