The dilemma for journalists this week: How should you cover a series of proto-scandals with seemingly little in common? As far as we know, internal Obama administration edits of talking points about the Benghazi attacks, Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups for additional scrutiny, and the Justice Department’s seizure of Associated Press phone records aren’t part of some overarching political strategy; they don’t even involve the same administration officials. What links these events together, of course, is a new political reality: the administration is embattled by scandal for the first time since President Obama took office. Given the political circumstances, that pattern appears likely to continue.
So what should reporters do? Many are covering the new “narrative” of Obama’s administration, which is reflective of the way that political and media elites coordinate on interpretations of events as scandalous. As I argue in my academic research, media scandals are a “co-production” of the opposition party and the press. When both groups portray an event like the IRS allegations as a scandal, it often generates strong perceptions of wrongdoing among elites—in other words, a narrative of misconduct.
This week’s focus on narrative has been infuriating to critics like Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent, a liberal writer who points out that reporters are “imposing simplistic narratives on complex, disparate situations.” Both Politico’s Alexander Burns and John F. Harris and the Post’s Karen Tumulty, for instance, frame the scandals as part of a narrative in which Obama is too aggressive in pursuing his political and ideological objectives—but no one has yet produced evidence of high-level White House involvement in either the IRS or AP cases. (As a result, Obama’s opponents are already attempting to link him to other scandals using vague language about how he gave “cues” through his “tone” and created “a mood, a tone… an atmosphere”.) Followup coverage has similarly framed the White House response as an attempt to “seize control of the narrative” and “shift in its favor the narrative.”
Others, like the Post’s Ezra Klein, have noted the contradiction between the narrative of scandal and the lack of evidence of high-level misconduct. The strength of evidence matters, of course, but it does not solely determine what does or does not become a media scandal; these are political events, not courtroom trials. That’s why the scope of the scandal is already growing to encompass conspiracy theories about George Soros, leaks to the Obama campaign, and suggestions of politically-motivated audits of Romney donors. Scandals can quickly take on a life of their own.
Given those dynamics, how should scandal coverage be handled? Reporters could start by taking more responsibility for their role in creating and sustaining the media narratives that they are covering. It’s not easy to accommodate such an acknowledgment within the paradigm of objective news reporting, which typically frames the reporter as a passive observer of events—the Burns and Harris story on Obama’s “dangerous new narrative,” for instance, does not acknowledge Politico’s role in flooding the zone on these controversies. Still, there are surely ways to be more transparent about the media’s role in narrative creation and to exercise more careful judgment about which events to cover and how to frame them.
Most importantly, even as they acknowledge the role and importance of elite perceptions, reporters can do more to help readers separate the political event from the underlying facts. It’s much easier to pontificate about the “narrative” or engage in armchair punditry about scandal response tactics (Obama needs new staff!) than to do the hard work of reporting, but that hard work remains the most important function of journalism.
Follow @USProjectCJR for more posts from this author and the rest of the United States Project team.

Professor Nyhan argues that "scandals are a 'co-production' of the opposition party and the press" and says reporters should take "more responsibility for their role in creating and sustaining the media narratives that they are covering." The flip side of this coin is that if the press fails to treat as scandals stories that cast in a bad light an administration they admire, then no scandals occur. Acknowledging that is part of the media taking responsibility.
In 2011 and 2012 there were plenty of allegations of IRS wrongdoing to hurt conservatives and help the Obama campaign. The trees fell in the forest, but most of the media had their fingers firmly planted in their ears as they sing-songed, "We can't hear you!" So the falling trees never made a sound; there were no scandals.
BTW, kudos to Professor Nyhan for identifying Greg Sargent as a liberal writer. True dat. But how in the world did Ezra Klein (he of JournoList fame) get off without his liberal slant being noted?
#1 Posted by RobC, CJR on Fri 17 May 2013 at 12:29 PM
Good piece by Brendan Nyhan, but I would go further and urge media folks to reserve judgment on whether Benghazi and the IRS matter are "scandals" at all. As more information emerges about them, it seems clearer that these were at most bureacratic mistakes/misjudgments that were understandable in light of confusion about what really happened in the case of Benghazi and contradictory legal guidelines in the case of the IRS. They look like honest mistakes (in both cases at least partly caused by lack of funding provided by Congress), and honest mistakes do not constitute scandals. Whereas the Justice Department's blanket investigation of the Associated Press in the hunt for a whistleblower does seem like a dangerous and unprecedented intrusion into news operations and the First Amendment, and we have to wait and see whether that emerges as a true scandal.
#2 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Fri 17 May 2013 at 01:02 PM
Oh please, RobC
Plenty of allegations? Who says- you?
The hypocritical ourage from the right & the media's deliberately ignoring it is laughable if it weren't so sad.
Susan Collins said it was "chilling" that the IRS was targeting organizations- & SHE actally signed a letter to IRS in 2004 requesting it do just that to the NAACP.
It's truly difficult to take the right seriously when they complain about Obama's administration & all that has happened while he serves his SECOND term when they themselves did the EXACT (not similar) same thing.
Seems the ears with those finger plugs are on the heads of the right.
#3 Posted by HarryT, CJR on Fri 17 May 2013 at 01:02 PM
Harris Meyer-
The DOJ did not have a blanket investigation of AP in the hunt of a whistleblower.
The DOJ had a subpoena- signed by a federal judge- for phone records (just the numbers) to find a leak in the government. AP wasn't the target- it was a conduit for information. The 1st Amendment was never in danger- but an MI-6 agent was. The leak was the problem & AP should have been cooperative.
Perhaps you could follow your own advice and reserve judgment.
#4 Posted by HarryT, CJR on Fri 17 May 2013 at 01:43 PM
Of course, the stinker is it's not like there's a shortage of scandals plaguing the Obama administration from Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer on down.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/while-wronged-homeowners-got-300-apiece-in-foreclosure-settlement-consultants-who-helped-protect-banks-got-2-billion-20130426
"[This] about the foreclosure/robo-signing settlement that was concluded earlier this year.
The upshot of this story is that in advance of that notorious settlement, the government ordered banks to hire "independent" consultants to examine their loan files to see just exactly how corrupt they were.
Now it comes out that not only were these consultants not so independent, not only did they very likely skew the numbers seriously in favor of the banks, and not only were these few consultants paid over $2 billion (over 20 percent of the entire settlement amount) while the average homeowner only received $300 in the deal – in addition to all of that, it appears that federal regulators will not turn over the evidence of impropriety they discovered during these reviews to homeowners who may want to sue the banks.
In other words, the government not only ordered the banks to hire consultants who may have gamed the foreclosure settlement in favor of the banks, but the regulators themselves are hiding the information from the public in order to shield the banks from further lawsuits."
There's plenty of real things to get mad about, but we're lacking the will in our political classes to care about important things.
And that's because the political press in this country largely lacks professionalism.
http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/politics/politico-obama-lacks-good-will-051513
"Let me give the two presiding geniuses a tip from my days covering the wonderful wide world of sports. The people you cover do not have to like you. The people you cover are under no obligation to be nice to you... when they don't like what you've written, which is pretty much always. The people you cover can and will throw jockstraps at your head — and do infinitely worse — if they so choose. That does not free you from your obligation to cover what they do for a living fairly, and to present that information to your readers accurately...
Quite simply, any political journalist who decides to be "as ruthless as can be" chasing the current crop of phony and/or demi-scandals, and does so based on the deep philosophical principle of "Nyah, nyah. You think you're so smart. I'll get you at recess," should be looking for a new job by nightfall. "
There are people in this country who lack capacity for shame and yet have excess capacity for pettiness and ignorance.
And they're on TV every Sunday, gleefully ruining the world.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 17 May 2013 at 04:29 PM
HarryT, read my sentence again. "We have to wait and see whether that emerges as a true scandal."
Whereas the Justice Department's blanket investigation of the Associated Press in the hunt for a whistleblower does seem like a dangerous and unprecedented intrusion into news operations and the First Amendment, and we have to wait and see whether that emerges as a true scandal.
#6 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Fri 17 May 2013 at 07:59 PM
How should you cover a series of proto-scandals with seemingly little in common? As far as we know... [they] aren’t part of some overarching political strategy; they don’t even involve the same administration officials.
The weasel words "as far as we know" make this statement technically accurate. However, all three "proto-scandals" involved efforts to deceive, mislead, or conceal information from the public in a way that helped Mr. Obama not be embarrassed during the 2012 election. We don't know who in the White House approved the various actions or even whether the President did. I don't think we'll ever find out. Nor do we know the extent of the scandals. E.g., what else did the IRS do to help the Dems and hurt the Reps? Were individuals and groups audited because they opposed Mr. Obama and the Dems?
During Watergate the media knew how to cover a "proto-scandal" like this. They investigated. They dug out new material. They correlated the facts they had and drew inferences. When the President told obvious lies, they called him on it. They demanded a Special Prosecutor, so that the public could get full, reliable information.
Unfortunately, with a Dem in the White House, the media isn't using this approach# On the contrary, some are spinning the story as just another political dispute.
#7 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Sat 18 May 2013 at 11:43 AM
David in Cal has a short memory of how the press operated while a president watched his political sponsors trash California's power market as the federal government whistled, as a president went on vacation while an attack with thousands of casualties as the government whistled, as the country got lied into a war, as the government edited and falsified papers on climate change, as the justice department persued false allegations of voter fraud against democrats, as a city sank under a storm front and the government bungled the cleanup, as the government stood by while a housing bubble built on predatory lenders and fraudulent security sellers destroyed the economy. And the debt! OMG the debt. When he started there was a surplus, you recall.
Why heck, I remember when the White House planted an actual male prostitute into the press room to pitch soft ball questions and nobody noticed that anything was awry with that. I remember when the president made light of hunting under his desk for missing Iraqi WMD's in a slide show in front of the whole press establishment. Ha ha. Those were the days.
These things don't bother these beautiful minds of the political press who determine a wrinkle from a scandal. Oh no, what bothers these people:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.ca/2007/11/hide-bunnies-by-digby-radar-online.html
is something different:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.ca/2007/11/village-social-tabbies-hiss-and-yowl-by.html
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 19 May 2013 at 02:20 PM
All of CJR's and MSM's shameless apologia for the criminal regime is easily DESTROYED, here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/the-biggest-obama-scandals-are-proven-and-ignored/275960/ SMH & LMAO @ the court historians and gatekeepers.
#9 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sun 19 May 2013 at 07:34 PM
Yeah Dan, Conor makes a pretty solid case for criminality and scandal within the whitehouse, but the problem is that case is not based on the blown up hyperbole used to describe the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, nor the Benghazi whatever; and that is for good reason.
Conor's scandals are ones the village have supported and defended since the Bush Administration. When Obama first took office, the press leapt up condemning any rhetoric which might lead to investigations of the Bushites. To them the prosecution of former presidents for their crimes was "banana republic" style politics.
http://mobile.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/04/28/james-baker-on-torture-memos-were-not-a-banana-republic
""The one thing that we need to stay away from at all costs is criminalizing our policy differences," [James Baker] said, referring to Democratic efforts to investigate those who penned the memos justifying harsh interrogation methods under former President George W. Bush."
To placate these guys, Obama promised to look forward - not backward (you remember all this, right? It was 2009.) So though Conor describes real crimes and corruption of law, these were all crimes which, for reasons good and bad, the press supported and/or played a part in. They're crimes significant portions of democrats and republicans bipartisany carried out/covered up. They're not things we can talk about as crimes anymore, they're "policy differences".
You remember when the nytimes sat on the warrantless wiretapping scandal during the Bush Kerry election and wouldn't have published the story had James Risen not been including the story in his own book.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/20/nation/na-media20
To the village, surveillance and torture of 'those guys' == personal safety. They are culpable in belief and action for those crimes, so we're never really going to talk about them since to do so invites guilt about their past activities.
We're going to talk about stupid stuff, stuff which is peripheral and doesn't cause awkwardness when journos are asked about how much they knew about this leading up.
Conor is describing systemic problems as if they are presidential problems. Those problems aren't going to get fixed until you take on the system.
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 20 May 2013 at 03:09 AM
Speaking of embarrassing Presidential jokes, do you remember when Barack Obama joked about using the IRS to punish people?
At his Arizona State University commencement speech last Wednesday, Mr. Obama noted that ASU had refused to grant him an honorary degree, citing his lack of experience, and the controversy this had caused. He then demonstrated ASU's point by remarking, "I really thought this was much ado about nothing, but I do think we all learned an important lesson. I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets. . . . President [Michael] Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260113149028331.html
#11 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Mon 20 May 2013 at 08:04 PM
Thimbles. Duh. I'm here to correct CJR's BS defense of the regime, in this particular instance. That's all. But yeah, take on the system: a system which Obama fully employs to his heart's content, as have nearly all other executive sociopaths.
BTW, do you ever wonder why CJR's staff don't opine on FOREIGN POLICY at all, whereas they opine several times per day on DOMESTIC POLICY? Uh huh. I'm not holding my breath in hopes that this will change!
#12 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Tue 21 May 2013 at 12:44 PM