Press allowing 'campaign without a narrative'

By Maya Dollarhide
Special to
The Freedom Forum Online

10.11.00

Printer-friendly page

NEW YORK — Press coverage of the presidential campaign appears to be missing the mark, a panel of journalists and journalism experts said this morning.

Discussing the news media's role in the upcoming election, the breakfast panel on "Voting on the Media" voted down most of the coverage so far. Speakers said they hoped that the questions for tonight's second presidential debate would be more on target.

Dean Tom Goldstein of Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism noted that it was "fortuitous to meet on this day" for the first 2000 Columbia Journalism School First Amendment Breakfast Series, co-sponsored by the First Amendment Center. But that appeared to be the most optimistic comment.

"In many ways, this is a campaign without a narrative for the press," panelist Mark Jurkowitz, media critic for The Boston Globe, said.

Tom Rosenstiel, director of Project for Excellence in Journalism, suggested that the press may be suffering from post-Lewinsky symptoms. The news media are "not pushing an investigative system," he said, referring to what he called a lack of in-depth coverage of critical issues.

"It seemed like an election that would be perfect for the news media, but [we] have fallen victim to the 'Survivor' syndrome (as in, Who will make it to the White House?)," added Rick Kaplan, the former president of CNN/US.

Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter, who is also a contributing correspondent for NBC News, agreed. "This campaign is so relentlessly focused on everything but the issues," he said, adding: "The press needs to distinguish between campaign issues and the real issues of the candidates."

For example, the panelists noted that although Gore is a well-known advocate of environmental protection, he had not made the environment a major campaign issue. Bush, they said, had not fully addressed the increased number of executions in Texas or his support for rebuilding Texas prisons and opposition to federal spending for upkeep of decaying local schools.

Moderator Floyd Abrams, a veteran First Amendment attorney with Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, asked, "Why did the press get it wrong?"

Many panelists said news coverage follows poll results and that the press has fallen prey to the idea that the public is not interested in politics. "The public cares about issues," Alter said.

Rosenstiel likened the dominant focus of the coverage to that of "a horse race." The news media, he said, have become experts on how campaigns are run rather than experts on the issues.

Syndicated columnist and author Arianna Huffington was critical of the press's over-reliance on polls. "It's ludicrous," she said. "We need more questions out of the box."

Huffington also said the press had neglected to ask important questions about the drug war in the United States and in Colombia. "Not a single journalist has asked Bush or Gore about the Colombia drug war. Why should Bush and Gore dictate the questions being asked?" she asked.

Abrams asked what question each panelist would ask if he or she were involved in tonight's debate:

Rosenstiel would create an unexpected hypothetical emergency and ask the candidates to react.

Alter said he would ask Bush, "Do you believe other states need to catch up with Texas?" on increasing executions.

Jurkowitz suggested, "What (are the) issues you haven't talked about that would test you as president?"

Related

Election news 2000: What happened?
Dan Rather says at First Amendment Breakfast that more 'shoe-leather' reporting was needed.  12.07.00

Speaking with one voice: Does media cross-ownership stifle diversity?
First Amendment Breakfast panelists debate impact of media conglomeration on journalism, First Amendment.  12.15.00

Giuliani not accessible to news media, panelists say
Journalists, other speakers at Columbia University breakfast criticize New York City mayor's attitude toward press, First Amendment.  11.09.00