The reality, however, is that struggles with message control and policy salesmanship have
afflicted every modern president. Despite an endless stream of media claims to the contrary, the best political science research shows that presidents can rarely change public opinion on controversial policy issues. Even Reagan—the so-called Great Communicator himself—recognized this reality, conceding in his memoirs that his televised speeches supporting aid to the Contra rebels had little effect on the public. Indeed, Reagan’s pollster advised him after his re-election victory not to make televised speeches because they increase opposition to his proposals.
In short, White House coverage is stuck in the doldrums at least as much as its current occupant. Hey TNR—any chance of a second-term recovery guide for journalists?
Follow @USProjectCJR for more posts from this author and the rest of the United States Project team.
If today's Washington press corps is bored, it's because they're not doing enough to cover the real news that's all around them. E.g., Health Care Reform could and should be an enormous story. Here are some story lines that merit substantial coverage:
a. How will the law work with a big part of it delayed for a year?
b. Legality and Constitutionality of the President unilaterally modifying a law. (This same point deserved more coverage when the President began unilaterally handing out waivers to businesses of his choice.)
c. Impact of the modified law on individuals who won't be getting health coverage from their employers.
d. What are all the details of the law? IMHO the media ought to have covered this point when the law was being debated and they ought to have covered it when the law was enacted, but they didn't. We're still seeing new provisions come to light.
e. Should the entire law be delayed, given that a major section was delayed?
f. How will happen the cost of the law be affected by the one year delay in the employer mandate. Presumably a lot more individuals will go into the Exchanges, which will cost the federal government a substantial amount.
The media could spend a month covering aspects of this law. And, such coverage would be useful to us Americans who have to obey it. Instead the Times, e.g., merely has a headline "Postponing Health Rules Emboldens Republicans." It seems that their Washington Press Corps is only able to cope with the political contest. They should move their Washington reporters to the Sports Page and get some reporters who can explain policy implications to their readers.
#1 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Thu 4 Jul 2013 at 12:41 PM
Sorry, item (f) has an extra word. It should begin:
f. How will the cost of the law be affected
#2 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Thu 4 Jul 2013 at 12:58 PM