Com 450: Senior Seminar -- Politics and Media

Dr. Janet McMullen 

 

Last Updated:  09/11/2002


Mass Media and Politics: LECTURE 3-- Patterson Ch. 2; Additional Notes from Fallows, Ch. 2 (What has changed) 

Charles Prestwich Scott was the founder and editor of the English MANCHESTER, from 1872 to 1929. He was a forward thinking journalist who defined journalism as:

"The function of good newspaper and therefore a good journalist is to see life is steady and see it whole."

News business has changed dramatically since the founders used them to help establish this country.

By the Civil War, papers were beginning to declare independence from political parties. Horace Greeley (founder and editor of the New York TRIBUNE) and James Gordon Benett (Founder and Editor of the New York Herald) were leaders in this movement. Greeley was known for his anti-slavery position. While "objectivity" as we think of it was not exactly the issue, papers espoused their own opinions, not those of a specified party.

Changes Which have Let to Game-Schema Coverage of Election Campaigns:

In the last 50 years, a whole lot has changed. Fallows spends an entire chapter examining these changes. THESE CHANGES HAVE LET TO THE GAME-TYPE COVERAGE OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.

(Combine these with Patterson List)

News is seen as spectacle: 

1.    The Rise of TV

2.    Journalists as Celebrities. (Second effect of TV news as spectacle)

Fallows: "To succeed in TV, you have to be on the air. To succeed as a reporter, you have to be "off the air" -- or at least on the road. 60 MINUTES had major part in that because it made $$$$.  60 Minutes was successful because ...

Prior to 60 MINUTES, making $$ was not an issue in TV news.

David Halberstam wrote about the role of 60 Minutes on news and the celebrity journalist:

"When they do their promotional ads at CBS they like to use Mike Wallace as the signature figure. But I think Mike Wallace's instinct, when he looks at a story and thinks of drawing a line, is not whether something which happened is right or wrong, or moral or immoral, which is crucial for a signature journalist. It is whether it will entertain or not, and how he can cast himself--that's very important in shows like this, how you cast your stars."

When Halberstam refused to go down to the court house in a show of solidarity for the 60 Minutes crew during the Westmoreland suit, because he believed that Wallace had ambushed Westmoreland, Wallace called him the next day....Halberstam told him it wasn't personal, but it was "the carelessness of what you did on the Westmoreland piece, on something that was a very big piece of my life, taking a story that big and giving it the 60 Minutes technique, the quick parachute jump in, and then the equally quick departure. That's the kind of story you should have to devote weeks to." Wallace said,"That's what you have to do when you do 37 pieces a year." Halberstam said, "Do fewer."

But doing fewer is not as easy as it sounds. Networks want more profitable shows, not fewer.

Journalists must be on the air as much as possible to retain their "position" and maintain their success and celebrity status.

PRESIDENTS AREN'T MADE: THEY'RE SOLD: spinning the news/ ] 1984: Leslie Stahl did a piece that showed the contradiction between the what Reagan said and what he did. She showed him speaking at Special Olympics and then discussed cuts in funding for mental health. She then got a call from a white House official. Expecting to be drilled by him, she was surprised when he was happy about the story. She recalled later what he said:" You television people don't still get it. Don't you realize that the picture is all that counts? A powerful picture drowns out the words."

Reporters then become jaded by dealing with officials who lie to them to "spin". Since they can't say they think the official is manipulating information of outright lying--that perception comes out in "attitude"--sneering, negative implications in body language and some language choice.

To combat that, officials become MORE manipulative.

Reporters become more cynical....

DE-EMPHASIS OF POWER OF THE PRESIDENT ON THE WORLD VIEW

Decline of Local Newspapers, Life and Network News; Rise of Gannett, YACHTING, Court TV and Journalist as entrepreneur.

Journalist in role as PUBLIC EXPLAINER -- without tools to do it right.

Media establishment have roles formerly reserved to other groups, academics, and scientists. In the past local experts put events "in context". Journalists now comment on these issues, and hold those powers without the limits, constraints, responsibilities or rules which bind those professions.

This explains the BIG IDEA. The concepts or trends that are here today, reported widely and then gone practically overnight because they're no longer new and/or because media cannot place them in a realistic perspective.

Fallows gives examples on p. 153 after he writes "The worst effect of this cycle is to trivialize issues before they have a chance to be developed, tested, and explored. An idea becomes faddish, it is features in news magazines and TV segments, and then it becomes passe`--without ever having passed through a stage of serious attention.

The roller-coaster cycle of Big Ideas as grown since the 70's, and new media and pundits have tried to make themselves the primary identifier of trends.

A classic example of this occurred during the Tiannemen Square confrontation in Beijing in 1989. American media were saying this was the beginning of democracy in China. Specialists on China were not consulted, and most, in fact, disagreed. It didn't happen, yet media declared it WOULD happen throughout the coverage. They were wrong because they were not informed. They were in over their heads and didn't even know they needed the life preserver.

So let's go back to Scott's statement about what a journalist should do To SEE STEADY and TO SEE WHOLE:

What does steady and whole  mean today?

According to Fallows:

Perspective: Determining that which is important and that which is not. (covering the thousands of soviet warheads still floating around or Lorrena Bobbet )

"A convenient way to think about this side of journalistic culture is to imagine a seventh grade science class in which kids are trapped and realize they are going to have to learn the difference between metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. Then someone looks out the window and sees a fight on the playground....The room comes alive, and by the time the teacher can get control, the bell has rung." p. 133

Placement in Time: Chechnyan problem began developing 50 yrs ago, but we didn't hear about it until fighting broke out. Same with BOZNIA.

Mark Martz, long time NEWSWEEK REPORTER says as a result of cost cuts:

"Our remaining correspondents fly from earthquake to famine, from insurrection to massacre. They land running, as we are all taught to do, and they provide surprisingly good coverage of whatever is immediately going on....[but] we miss anticipation, thought, and meaning. Our global coverage has become a comic book: ZAP! POW! BANG-BANG!

Similarities and differences:

Usefulness:

News should serve purpose; effect our lives. Journalists don't like this because "good news" may be seen as making city leaders happy. People will buy papers/watch news when it connects to them. Sometimes need to be taken out side of the comfortable, but journalists focus on those things:

Result of Game Schema Coverage:

Message of today's news coverage is often that the world cannot be understood, shaped or controlled, but merely endured at arm's length.

"Americans see the outside world on TV could be forgiven for believing that all countries fall into two categories: those which are so messed up we shouldn't waste time thinking about them, and those that are messed up in a way that threatens our security or moral sensibility, so we should invade them, withdraw quickly, and forget about them again. p. 140

This explains to some degree why foreign news was not covered well before  9/11 and why the country was not prepared for what happens.  

Journalists are taught that NEWS = EVENTS OUT OF THE ORDINARY.

Patterson points out the significant differences between the way media look at politics and the way that the voters do. See p. 55 for examples of questions from voters. (some follow here)

Contrast with questions from news personnel:

The differences illustrated by these questions is caused by what psychologists call SCHEMAS:

Schema: a way of organizing and event or world. it's not only a different perspective, it's like looking through glasses with different parts of them "blacked out" -- like being color blind.

Voters schemas involve practical issues -- what does this mean for me? what kind of person are you? what will you do for the country?

News peoples' schema is different: They see it as Political race, a game. And they therefore interpret everything in the perspective of what it has does to do with success in the game!

Illustration: Ford's gaff in the 84 election where he said the Soviets had little control over its satellites. It was a mistake. He admitted, but the reporters covering the debate reported it as a costly error that could derail the campaign.

Patterson says the core concept of the schema is that reporter believe that candidates are "strategic Actors" whose every move is significant. He quote's Paul Weaver on p. 58, who says that in the Press's view: "...politics is essentially a game played by individual politicians for personal advancement, gain or power. The game is a competitive one and the players' principal activities are those of calculating and pursuing strategies designed to defeat competitors and to achieve their goals (usually election to public office). Of course, the game takes place against a backdrop of governmental institutions, public problems, policy debates, and the like, but these are noteworthy only insofar as they affect, or are used by, players in pursuit of the games rewards. The game is played before and audience--the electorate--which controls most of the prizes, and players therefore constantly attempt to make a favorable impression. In consequence, there is an endemic tendency for players to exaggerate their good qualities and to minimize their bad ones, to be deceitful, to engage in hypocrisies, to manipulate appearances; though inevitable, these tendencies are bad tendencies.and should be exposed. They reduce the electorate's ability to make its own discriminating choices, and they may hide players' infractions of the game's rules, such as those against corruption and lying."

Example of reporters "game" instinct: Oct. 1991 --Coverage of Bill Clinton's announcement of candidacy. After he announced that he would run and began talking about his policies, the cameras stayed on him while CNN went back to commentators. Viewers never heard the policy statements. Only where Clinton fell in the game.

Why don't policy problems get reported?

The voters have a difference schema: THE GOVERNING SCHEMA -- what does government do for me/how will it affect my life?

[Instructor note:  See p. 70-1 in Patterson, Out of Order  for comparison of coverage between Kennedy Speech and Clinton Speech. ****** This is excellent-- be sure to include it.]

People began to really notice this schema at its worst in 1988. Reporters evaluated their efforts and promised to do it differently the next time. 1992 and 1996 proved no better. The ultimate race was 2000 in which the "race" continued long after the November election, and news stories focused on strategies and polling data concerning "how to win" and "who ought to win".  According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, there was less coverage of the election (prior to the legal battles which followed it ) than in any year since 1988 when CMPA began tracking such things. Fully 71% of the stories dealt with the "horse race" aspect.  That was significantly more than the 46% of stories about the 1996 election which dealt with the game schema concept. (CMPA, January, 2001)

In 1992, policy issues accounted for less than 1/3 of election stories after the beginning of the New Hampshire Primary and those were given from a "game" perspective. That's even fewer stories than in 1988.

When policy issues were covered -- labeled "analysis. (NOTE : 1960--strategy stories were so labeled.)

Patterson argues that the United States is different in that the PRESS does most of the candidate's talking for him! (p. 77) In other countries, especially Britain, the press "hold's the ring" --sets boundaries, but coverage of policy issues is much more thorough.

WHAT HAPPENED to change the nature of election coverage?

Let's review the points Fallows makes to answer this question:

Patterson offers these reasons for GAME schema coverage, and note that they are all related to the first and most important reason: Strategy has become more important as candidates carry more of the burden for getting nominated/elected and parties carried less of it.  Because of that,

Patterson: p. 80 "Every news story should ....display the attributes of drama.

Interpretive style: telling the audience what the news meant, rather than presenting facts and letting them decide.

Percentage of interpretive reporting has increased drastically over the past two decades. Before, stories always included

(Discuss Postman and inherent content limitations on the expression of ideas.)

Patterson wrote about an instance on ABC World News Tonight in which a poll story received 12 1/2 minutes. (That's a lot on TV) Discussed each candidate's strengths state by state. Dayton Duncan, Dukakis's press secretary, noted "a new cure for cancer" might not have received the same news coverage and then pointed out the significant truth underlying the story: nothing had happened! !" A poll story is entirely manufactured. It is pseudo-news created by the news media to report on the game." They create it, they pay for it, and then report on it." The poll story is the press's analogue to the pseudo-events the candidates create to dramatize their policy positions."  (P. 83 Patterson)  

Result: viewers see behind the scenes, and candidates can't get their message out. Makes it very difficult to lead.

"When voters encounter game-centered stories, they behave more like spectators than participants in the election, responding if at all, to the status of the race, not to what the candidates represent. On the other hand, stories about the issues and candidates' qualifications bring out the politics in voters, eliciting evaluations of the candidates' leadership and personal traits and of their records and policy positions. (Patterson, p. 89-90))

This is a result of priming effect, agenda setting, and framing.

How the media "frame the election" effects the voters' schema. The horse race coverage encourages voters to perceive the process as one in which winning is the only important thing.

The "Game" in Election 2000. 

For an excellent, current source on the degree of game-centered reporting, see the special report at CMPA's site at http://www.cmpa.com/Mediamon/mm111200.htm  The report summarizes total campaign coverage in the 2000 election, which was slightly up (by number of stories) between Labor day and November 7th (election day) from the 1996 election, but reporters dominated the coverage, and candidates had very little opportunity to speak directly to the voting public. This is one of the reasons why candidates made a point to be interviewed on the talk show circuit.  Oprah Winfrey gave Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush more time to speak than the networks were willing to do.  The CMPA report documents that Mr. Bush appeared on the screen for 13 minutes on one David Letterman Show -- an amount of time larger than he was shown speaking on ABC, CBS and NBC all together during the month of October.  Al Gore's interview on Letterman provide him with more on-air time than he received on the networks during the month of September.

Sound bites dropped from 8.2 seconds in 1996 to 7.8 seconds in 2000!  (CMPA, Dec., 2000)

 

Let's synthesize these into a list a little more manageable:  REASONS FOR GAME REPORTING/SCHEMA

 

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GAME REPORTING SCHEMA/STYLE

(Source: Fallows, p. 159)

The sports metaphor is not new to sports reporting: "horse race" "game plan" "coming down the home stretch"

Fallows, however, makes an interesting point when he points out that it is no longer a metaphor: to reporters, the events of public life and election ARE a game!

The characteristics of GAME reporting illustrate the similarities between sports coverage and modern political coverage:

1. "BEING" vs. "DOING"

The event is going to happen anyway, whether the reporter is there or not. The event itself provides the importance, and the reporter lives in the "reflected glow."

2. WHAT YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER

We all know that who wins the U.T. - Notre Dame Game won't change our lives. They'll play again, we'll forget in between times.

"Much of today's press acts as if, down deep, they believe that none of it matters in public life either. This indifference goes beyond the tough exterior that many reporters believe is part of their professional role. It involves something more than the fatigue and blur that affects political reporters who fly form city to city and hear speech after speech while a campaign is fully under way. In comes through instead in the increasing instinct of reporters to skip past the consequence of any trend or event and focus instead on how the game was play." p. 161

What does matter to Sports Reporter? Qualities of the Pro's: Grace, Genius, Expertise, Determination, Competitive character. How skillfully they do their jobs!

Same thing applies to Political reporters: While not partisan, they overtly comment on the skill of the political tacticians.

3. NO CONFLICT, NO NEWS

Sports cannot exist without conflict; it makes up the games themselves.

Politics is the same: Someone wins and election and someone loses.

But in real government, leaders work best when they can compromise and work together. That, however, doesn't make good television, nor good sports.

Fallows provides a great example on p. 164:

"Less than six months into his term, Bill Clinton went to Chicago to give the first speech in his Americorps program, under which student could earn college tuition by working in national-service projects. A White House Aide who went on the trip recalled that during the speech itself, which laid out the details of the service-and-scholarship plan, most of the students in the audience listened with rapt attention. After all, the program the president was describing would directly affect them. As soon as the speech was over, the students in the crowd lept to their feet and gave Clinton a standing ovation. Through this period the reporters looked on with moderate interest. But then, the aide recalled: "One of the students asked how Clinton could propose sending troops anywhere when he had not gone to Vietnam. You could see a collective sigh from the press corps. Andrea Mitchell was waving and saying, "Roll tape! Roll Tape!" And that was the confrontation that they showed."

Jonathan Alter, writer for Newsweek puts it this way: :What bothers me is that the hyper-adversarialism that has ruined the American legal system is now really corroding journalism...It is driven by the TV shows. You get two people who are adversaries and watch them fight. The more they fight, the better TV it is. It conditions people to be adversarial--and unlike in the law, this kind of adversary process is not even useful. It's adversarialism as a pure sport."  

It also explains to some degree why crime was the most covered topic in the news in the 1990s.  Crime involves conflict and conflict is drama.  While the crime rate actually decreased substantially, crime reporting was up significantly... CMPA, July, 2000).

4. MEASURE WHAT CAN BE MEASURED

There are people who follow sports statistics to such a degree that they don't even care about seeing a real game. As I understand it, that's what fantasy football is about. Statistical performance.

After Clinton order a bombing raid on Sadam Hussien (after the plot to assassinate George Bush)) an overnight poll showed that 61 % of the public thought it was a good idea, and only 28 % thought it was a bad idea that risked further bloodshed. When the poll was conducted, the reports were half in and incomplete. "As a result, the poll reading reflected nothing other than top-of-the head first reaction which is often not the right basis for military commitment. Yet since it produced precise-seeming results--61 % pro and 28% con--the poll could be reported as if it represented something real! No acknowledgment of difference between instant reaction and thoughtful consideration. Fallows points out that if jury trials were conducted the way most opinion polls are, the jury would be polled before the trial every began! If, however, a judge finds the jury had decided something not in keeping with the evidence presented, the judge as the option to throw out the decision. Reporters have the same option about polls, but rarely use it! (WHY? Because his/her institution has PAID for the poll!)

Check what polls are published this morning.....and with what frequency are the news organizations conducting those polls.

5. PREDICTION RATHER THAN ASSESSMENT:

Prediction and build-up are keys in sports reporting. Use Super Bowl as example. Two weeks before, there are tons of stories about it and lots of hype. Two hours after it's over, is old news; not another word appears.

Public affairs writing follows the same pattern. Prior to election: Major build-up; after it's over, not another word--except what it means for the next political contest.

"The big difference between political handicappers and those who set the point spread in sports is that in politics there is no payoff day. For pundits there is no financial or professional penalty for being wrong. There can be rewards for being right! (you get hired to consult)

6. THE ROAD TO THE FINAL FOUR:

Some sports writers have said that baseball seasons only have meaning as they approach the world series. Nothing matters out of that context. NCAA, NBA, NFL championships are the same. They color the entire season. A team can go to the Play-offs and still the coach gets fired because they didn't win the Super Bowl

Real life is rarely that clear - cut, but: The same thing could be said about how politics is covered. Within weeks after after he was inaugurated, reporters were questioning whether or not Clinton had a right to run for re-election, and what the events of the first weeks of office would do to his chances.

Before the 2002 elections are complete, there is talk about whether or not Al Gore will run for President, in '04 and there is talk of Hillary Clinton running in 2008.

Fallows: "The implied message of all such coverage is: the four years before an election are merely a diversion, much like the tedious mid season basketball games. They are interesting mainly for the ways in which they position the combatants for the championship campaign. "

While this mentality is move visible in political reporting, is shows up in nearly all forms of journalism:


7. FLATTENING OF EVENTS:

In sports everything is important for a very brief time. There's always another season. Olympics, Super Bowl, etc. They come and go, and life goes on. One may be somewhat more important for a time, but not for long.

Something much the same has happened in news: Two Categories have formed:

Big events are more important than little ones, but no BIG event is more important than another one, unless it's happening right now.

How the OJ Simpson case influenced what got on the news, is a perfect example:

Fallows: "A celebrity murder case, a potential threat to world peace--they were equally good at a filling the slot of the biggest story of the moment." p. 174

Sports broadcasters don't have the responsibility to say that the Super Bowl is more or less important than the World Series. But in the real world,  reporters do have that responsibility. (...Back to seeing the world "steady and whole" ) The more it reports in sports style, the less it achieves that goal.

In the world of sports, one loss counts just like another. In political coverage the same is true, no matter what the cause.

"The ironic effect of the evenhandedness (is) to make every problem or disagreement part of one undifferentiated mass of 'mishandling' or 'disarray.' Temper tantrums, legislative miscalculations, historic shifts in economic fundamentals--they all count equally as 'losses' or 'mistakes'."

On the weekend talk shows , the first question asks whether the president or candidate had a "good week" or a "bad week" based on wins and losses on a particular issue.

This trivializes events, focuses on short-term effects and sets a rhythm of politics that is controlled by the media. "...media ...play timekeeper, umpire and finally judge."

This is a question which would not occur to the average voter. It would be natural for a sportscaster.

8. LET THE EXPERTS SET THE AGENDA, BUT MAKE UP FOR IT WITH ATTITUDE.

Fallows provides an example from New York Times 5/7/95: "Desperately in need of a Winning Streak: Clinton Fins One." (news story)

"Last Thursday was something of a rarity for Bill Clinton: a good day. Not only that, it was just one of a string of good days this President has had in the last few weeks, with Congress either away on spring recess or returning to Washington to face legislative issues much stickier than those House Republicans dispatched in their first 100 days....Mr. Clinton has also taken actions that were nothing more or less than presidential, but that seemed unusually decisive and rhetorically charged for him." p. 178-9

Assignment: (5 pts) Find a news story about the current election campaign which illustrates the game schema and turn it it for five points extra credit.

Charles Peters (reporter) has said: "There is nothing the average journalist fears more than ridicule...You are really going out on a limb if you say, 'This is a good idea." This is what is good about Bill Clinton.'--or Bob Dole or Newt Gingrich. "Or if you say, "this is an important idea.' You immediately lay yourself open to people saying that you're being booed and getting laughed at. One the real reasons for the vicious pack mentality in journalism is that people are so afraid of ridicule form their peers."

"You can be wrong, as long as you're negative and skeptical, " a reporter for ABC said in 1995. "But if you're going to say something remotely positive, you'd better be 150 percent right or you're going to be accused of rolling over." p. 180

Attitude shows up in different ways:

Sam Donaldson, shouting over helicopter blade is the ICON for today's journalist.

9. THE BASIC DIFFERENCE:

Resources: 

 

 

Copyright, 2002

Dr. Janet McMullen

Return to Com 450 page

Return to Dr. Mc's Home Page