More generally, Gilbert frequently interviews prominent state experts with specialized expertise—such as Franklin, a respected scholar of public opinion at UW-Madison who directed the Marquette Law School poll in 2012, and Ken Goldstein, a colleague of Franklin’s who studies campaign advertising and now directs the Campaign Media Analysis Group at Kantar Media, a service that tracks political ad spending. As a result, his coverage of polls and the campaign ad wars is unusually sophisticated and data-driven.
At a personal level, I’m curious why Gilbert has taken this approach (I don’t know him). But despite the progress in recent years, the more important question for journalism is why other reporters have not done the same. Political science certainly doesn’t have all the answers, but it can help make reporting smarter. So why is Gilbert such an outlier?
I wrote roughly 2,000 stories and columns for a major Canadian daily during 25+ years, ending in 2004. In a Factiva truncation search the term [political scien$] shows up in about 10% of them. I guess it helps if your degrees are in poli-sci, but I never felt I was doing anything unusual. The practice may need to be re-learned, but it certainly isn't new.
#1 Posted by Paul Knox, CJR on Mon 25 Mar 2013 at 08:54 PM
Brendan, Craig did a sabbatical year at ISR's Political Studies division, studying w/ the behavior folks there. He said that had a big effect on his thinking at an MPSA panel he was on last year w/ Sides, Vavreck, and Masket,
#2 Posted by j, CJR on Wed 27 Mar 2013 at 02:47 PM
It is not simply that there is a philosophical divide, but also that the divide is "knee jerk". Specifically, positions held by Republicans, once adopted by Democrats, now mean that they are opposed by Republicans. How is that an educated electorate issue? It has devolved to blind partisanship. Period. Full stop.
#3 Posted by Bruce, CJR on Wed 27 Mar 2013 at 03:43 PM