Fiscal policy and the budget sequester were also the focus in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, along with a recounting of the “47 percent” exchange that included Kaine’s “minimum tax” line and his subsequent backtrack. The Roanoke Times took a similar approach, while also delving into the candidates’ discussions of foreign policy and bipartisanship. (Unfortunately, the Times’s subhed showed how policy-oriented debate coverage can turn into a laundy list: “George Allen and Tim Kaine outlined their stances on several national issues,” it read.) So did The Associated Press, in a story that was carried by the state’s smaller papers.
All these accounts appropriately featured Kaine’s “minimum tax” line. The difference is in the prominence it was given—and whether the article included any other information a voter might want to know.
Going forward, meanwhile, reporters might consider this advice from blogger (and Washington Post contributor) Jon Bernstein: if Kaine mangled his talking points because he’s ill-informed on tax policy or generally doesn’t know what he’s talking about, “there’s a larger story than flubbing an answer in a debate, and that story really deserves to be covered.” But if he just happened to make an ill-opportune mistake, there’s not much here. That’s something for journalists to figure out—and report accordingly.
Of course, reporting what the candidates are saying on various issues isn’t as good as checking the accuracy of their claims, and there was little pushback offered in any of the initial debate coverage beyond the point-counterpoint provided by the candidates themselves. Fortunately, the staff at PolitiFact Virginia ably checked in Friday with a quick look at some of Kaine and Allen’s claims, drawing from some of their previous work, and they promise more to come.
In addition to the debate fact-check, on Thursday PolitiFact Virginia took a close look at Allen’s charge that Kaine supports “devastating defense cuts.”
That’s great news. As I noted in a post on Thursday, the Senate race pace is accelerating precipitously. There are two more debates between Allen and Kaine, and it seems as if a new ad is airing from one or the other camps daily. Hopefully newsrooms around the station are gearing up to offer similar substantive, thoughtful coverage, and to help voters sort through the message war.
Related posts:
I didn't hear the debate, but couldn't Kaine have been talking about the proposal floated by Democratic leaders to establish a minimum federal income tax level for higher-income earners, say around a 30% marginal rate for higher incomes, so we don't have the phenomenon of extremely wealthy people paying very low rates or nothing at all? Maybe that's what he was referring to but did not express it clearly.
#1 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Fri 21 Sep 2012 at 10:20 PM
Gaffe = when a politician inadvertently tells the truth.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 21 Sep 2012 at 11:16 PM
Can CJR please revisit the trite, overused "gaffe" thing? Every single event outside a very narrow frame is all of a sudden a "gaffe." Every single day some journo gets to thoughtlessly typing up yet another "gaffe" story. Can we please have some writers with an original thought, please? Framing everything as a "gaffe" is boring and nothing but click bait. It adds nothing -- nothing whatever -- to the campaign reporting. You should be writing about what Kaine said and what it would mean to the people whose taxes he proposes to raise, not just mindlessly calling it a gaffe and letting it go at that.
All this sneering and snickering and mindlessly calling statements "gaffes" by cynical political journos just proves that we could fire about three quarters of them and not miss a step. Fifteen thousand journos mindlessly tweeting and writing about "gaffes" and people still don't get the difference between the two Medicare proposals. They don't get either side's plans for Social Security. They don't understand Romney's foreign policy proposals and how they differ from Obama's. They don't understand why Romney's neocon advisors are itching to bombombbomb Iran and what role Netanyahu is playing in ginning up another boots-on-the-ground war in the Middle East.
Just useless, useless reporting. Who friggin' cares?
#3 Posted by James, CJR on Sat 22 Sep 2012 at 12:30 AM
Virginians should think with their heads. The Federal Government has spent itself into a deep hole and more taxes only does one thing give a government more money to spend without reigning in their spending. The Feds idea of spuring the economy by printing more money, only hurts everyone who has to pay for staplesw to live because the cost of the dollar is cheaper and the cost of products are higher to make up for a weaker dollar. $250,000 is considered middle class? In what world does Washinton live in? Most Virginian middle class which is about 3/4 make an avewrage of 25,000- 36,000 and married couples both working average 50,000-70,000 which is a far cry from 250,000. Back in the middle of the 1900's States paid their U.S. Senators and Representatives which they got paid by what was considered a fair pay by the economy of their state. Also, The governor could call them to his office if it was decided that they may not be voting in the best intrest of their state. It would be a wise move to go back to this model since when they become a part of a Party,they rarely use good judgement. Be3ing a politician means gaining power and generally at a cost to his constituents.
#4 Posted by Brad, CJR on Tue 2 Oct 2012 at 06:00 AM