As we sipped red wine in Washington last week, Republican pollster David Winston suddenly asked me, “Why doesn’t the media write more about issues that are of central concern to the voters? Why don’t they write more about candidate differences and the implications for the country? Instead we get a litany of process pieces with issues as a sideshow.”
When pollsters—yes, pollsters—start sounding like high-minded press critics, it’s a sign that horse-race hysteria has grown to absurd levels. With the election still four months away, we are hooked up to ephemeral data bursts with a shelf life of four hours. As Winston, who has no connection to the Mitt Romney campaign, went on to say, “This coverage makes it difficult for voters to decide whom they want to give the responsibility of governing to.”
But, as I struggled to explain to Winston, writing about issues in a presidential race is far more complex than merely listing Romney’s and Barack Obama’s policy proposals side-by-side, while projecting their costs based on green-eyeshade forecasts from a non-partisan think tanks. Covering issues in this formulaic fashion is not only yawn-inducing; all too often it is completely wrong.
The next day, John Roberts saved Obama’s healthcare plan in stunning fashion, underscoring yet again the journalistic folly of spending more time trying to forecast the future than to understand the present. Once the Supreme Court ruled, press coverage of the healthcare issue buttressed Winston’s complaint that the media cares about everything except what matters to the voters.
Every angle of the story was over-covered, except what President Romney would do about health care in the event that he and a Republican-led Congress rescind Obamacare. Romney’s affirmative policy proposals, such as they are, became almost completely lost in the shuffle. Typical was an Associated Press story by Kasie Hunt and Steve Peoples that began with the intriguing lede: “So much for Mitt Romney escaping health care.” But the AP dispatch almost exclusively dealt with Romney’s latest efforts to explain away his support for a healthcare mandate in Massachusetts. This, admittedly, is a valid topic, but probably less critical to swing voters than what, if anything, Romney would do to address the concerns of Americans without health insurance.
A rare exception was a New York Times article by Trip Gabriel and Robert Pear that parsed Romney’s proposals for healthcare tax deductions and transforming Medicaid into a block grant to the states. But for all its serious intent, the Times story quickly became mired in he-said-and-she-responded journalism. Without exception, every person quoted by Gabriel and Pear was either a Democratic or a Republican partisan. Ezra Klein, writing in his Washington Post blog before the decision in mid-June, did a far better job pointing up the lack of specificity in many of Romney’s health-care statements.
Healthcare campaign coverage represents merely one symptom of a chronic journalistic malady—passivity when it comes to framing stories about issues. A prime example: Neither Obama nor Romney is talking forthrightly about what has become known as Taxmageddon, or the “fiscal cliff.” Unknown to most voters, at the stroke of midnight on New Year’s Eve all the Bush tax cuts will expire and draconian deficit-reducing budget cuts will kick in. In short, if Congress does nothing (dynamic inaction plays to the unique talents of legislators), the fiscal landscape on Inauguration Day 2013 will have changed beyond recognition.
But you’d hardly know it from the campaign beat.
As far as presidential issues go, the most potentially important story in the last few days came from Capitol Hill rather than from campaign reporters. A Reuters report by Kim Dixon and Richard Cowan detailed growing bipartisan sentiment on Capitol Hill to delay any lasting fiscal decision until after the new Congress and president are sworn in. Under this scenario, whoever is residing in the Oval Office on January 20 will be at the center of the biggest revision of the tax code since the mid-1980s.

Amen to this Walter Shapiro column. I've also been incredibly frustrated that the media have failed to talk about Romney's health care proposals, such as they are. And that NY Times piece was indeed weak. The best two pieces so far have been Noam Levey's LA Times piece and my article in Medscape. I'm really really hoping the media will wake up on this. It's getting late.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/23/nation/la-na-romney-healthcare-20120423
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/764555 (free login required)
http://managedhealthcareexecutive.modernmedicine.com/mhe/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=757580&pageID=1&sk=&date=
#1 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Thu 5 Jul 2012 at 04:16 PM
The first step is to look in the right place. Ben Swann, whom CJR has yet to acknowledge, pretty much owns this subject. He's an exceptional reporter, in general.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 5 Jul 2012 at 07:42 PM
I watched this Ben Swann report and was stunned by how superficial and inaccurate it was, with its conclusion that President Obama and Mitt Romney have proposed the same thing for health care. I don't even know where to start. Swann took the president's statement that Americans who are happy with their coverage can keep it, and called that inaccurate because employers could change the coverage. Well, of course, employers always have been able to change or drop coverage, regardless of this or any other law. Give me a break. As for Romney, all Swann does is let Romney go on and on with his general statements such as people with preexisting conditions will be guaranteed access to coverage. But how??? That's the $64,000 question and Romney hasn't answered it. But Swann apparently regards Romney's assertion as adequate. Lordy, Dan A., if that's what you call "owning the subject," we'll have to agree to disagree.
#3 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Thu 5 Jul 2012 at 08:05 PM
You watched it, eh? Did you also mute your volume?
Harris Meyer: "I ... was stunned by how superficial and inaccurate it was, with its conclusion that President Obama and Mitt Romney have proposed the same thing for health care."
Ben Swann: "Governor Romney and President Obama have very similar answers and very similar views on healthcare. ... If Romney had the opposing position, it would be to extract government from healthcare."
Me: Govt v Private is anything but superficial. And so far, the only inaccurate thing is your claim.
- - - - -
Harris: "Swann took the president's statement that Americans who are happy with their coverage can keep it, and called that inaccurate because employers could change the coverage. Well, of course, employers always have been able to change or drop coverage, regardless of this or any other law."
Ben: "Well, if reelected, President Obama won't do anything to scale back the Affordable Care Act, obviously, but he may decide to add to it. [video clip]"
Me: Is that where you dispute Ben's accuracy? Good luck. The immediately ensuing video clip has Obama saying something that is not true. But the bigger purpose of that section is to reveal, by program's end, that both Obama and Romney would add that feature to the ACA.
- - - - -
Harris: "As for Romney, all Swann does is let Romney go on and on with his general statements such as people with preexisting conditions will be guaranteed access to coverage. But how??? That's the $64,000 question and Romney hasn't answered it. But Swann apparently regards Romney's assertion as adequate."
Ben: "So when Romney says he wants to repeal and replace Obamacare, the biggest unknown question is: 'Replace it with what?'"
Me: Again, who is being inaccurate here? Ben lets Romney "go on and on" to (1) reveal how "very similar" are Romney's and Obama's approaches to healthcare, and (2) set up his "$64,000 question."
- - - - -
So, when will you truly dispute Ben Swann's reporting?
#4 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 6 Jul 2012 at 03:21 AM
I could but I'm not going to point out further inaccuracies in Swann's piece. I would simply suggest reading Levey's and my articles to get a better sense of the radical but detail-free nature of what Romney has proposed, which is very very different from the direction of the Affordable Care Act.
#5 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Fri 6 Jul 2012 at 01:21 PM