politics

Admitting the Problem Is Half the Battle

September 30, 2004

As we gear up for tonight’s showdown in the Sunshine State, it’s not hard to identify the prevailing conventional wisdom about media coverage of the debates. As ABC News’ The Note put it this morning, “What the news coverage says immediately after the debate is just as important — maybe more important — than what happens in the debate itself blah blah blah.”

It’s hard to blame The Note for feeling jaded. The same point has been made in recent days by a slew of commentators. Adam Clymer led things off in the New York Times on Monday, commenting that “The immediate judgments of television watchers can be changed by analysts citing a moment as a blunder or an overall presentation as strong or weak, commanding or uninformed, human or condescending.”

Paul Krugman, writing the next day in the same paper, seconded the motion: “Interviews with focus groups just after the first 2000 debate showed Al Gore with a slight edge. … [But] front-page coverage of the 2000 debates emphasized not what the candidates said but their ‘body language.’ … The result of this emphasis on the candidates’ acting skills rather than their substance was that after a few days, Mr. Bush’s defeat in the debate had been spun into a victory.”

Next came Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo.com, writing Tuesday afternoon, “[T]he winner of the debate won’t be determined during the 90-minute encounter itself but during the spin war that will follow it.”

And Howard Kurtz wrote on WashingtonPost.com yesterday, “perceptions can shift as commentators, analysts and spinners chew things over and selected sound bites are endlessly replayed on television.”

And it’s not just high-minded commentators like Clymer, Krugman, Marshall, and Kurtz who are recognizing the importance of the post-debate spin operation. It’s also filtered down to the outlets most responsible for disseminating that spin: the cable news shows. On “Fox News Live” today, former Republican consultant Jay Severin declared:

Sign up for CJR's daily email

“There are three realities tonight. The first reality is the debate itself. Who won, can we say someone won or lost the debate itself? The second reality is, who the pundits say won the debate a few minutes later. Now, these don’t always — are not always related, they ought to be — ideally, who won ought to filter down into who the so-called experts say won. The third reality, truly the only one that counts is whether or not the performances move any votes.”

And CNN correspondent Frank Buckley, appearing yesterday on “CNN Live Today,” reported:

While Senator Kerry continues in his debate prep mode, some of his advisers are now moving into the all-important spin mode. Important for setting expectations in advance of the debate, and very important after the debate, as well, because research has shown that many voters take their cues from that post-debate spin or analysis that they see on the TV news, and that’s how they decide who has actually won the debate.

To be sure, there are still those who resist the conclusion that the media plays a crucial role in how the debates are perceived, such as Judy Wodruff, who asked on CNN, “[I]s there real evidence that this kind of involvement by other people, the spinners and the rest of them, really has an affect on what people think?” (Does Woodruff think the campaigns devote hundreds of staff members to post-debate spin simply as a public service?)

Woodruff’s obtuseness aside, it’s clear that there’s a developing consensus in the news media that its own judgment about who “won” the debate is more important than anything the candidates actually say up on the stage.

But there’s something weird about these acknowledgments by members of the press that they are as much players as they are observers. To a man, they seem to treat “the media” as if it were some external force, over which the speaker him or herself has no control. Never do these same commentators seem willing to consider that that they are in fact, talking about themselves — that it is they who are integral to keeping this juggernaut of spin in motion.

Buckley and CNN, for instance, may observe that “many voters take their cues from that post-debate spin or analysis that they see on the TV news.” But count on it, Buckley and his CNN colleagues will be among the first to engage in that “post-debate spin or analysis.” Self-awareness doesn’t count for much if you’re not willing to change your behavior.

A press corps that had the courage of its convictions might take the advice of the Times‘s Adam Nagourney (now there’s something you never thought you’d read on Campaign Desk), who this week told the Miami Herald, ”I avoid Spin Alley at all costs. I think it’s degrading for reporters and degrading for political operatives. What’s important to me is what the candidates say. I don’t care about anyone else.”

What if the press corps took Nagourney’s lead, and post-debate coverage were devoted instead to substantive assessments of the candidates’ performances — “checking the accuracy of claims about the past and the present and the plausibility of what is claimed for the future,” as Clymer suggested?

We won’t be holding our breath.

–Zachary Roth

Zachary Roth is a contributing editor to The Washington Monthly. He also has written for The Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, Slate, Salon, The Daily Beast, and Talking Points Memo, among other outlets.