Category Archives: Political coverage

Journalism: the source of modern democracy?

Posted on by

You probably thought it was the other way around, right? But former New York Times bureau chief Bill Kovach illustrated this point for visiting journalists at the State Department’s Foreign Press Center by looking back before the 17th century’s Age of Enlightenment transformed European society.

Back then most, as impoverished commoners, “had no place in the community except to keep their mouth shut and do their work,” Kovach said. “They had no information about how the community was run and how the people and institutions of power did their business because no one told them.”

Occasionally, word would trickle down of the monarch’s latest proclamation, a local religious leader would relay a few pieces of news, or a traveling troubadour would pass through singing about the happenings in a village hundreds of miles away.

But public opinion “is what democracy is based on,” Kovach says. And there was so little information back then that it was basically impossible to have a real opinion on your leaders or how you were being governed.

When people began compiling newsletters of information for their communities, they not only invented journalism, but for the first time they enabled others to have an opinion about anything, which increased the pressure to allow more to have a say in government.

For more on Kovach’s views on the media, see the article “Media Analyst Urges Revival of ‘Independent’ Journalism.”

Former Federal Reserve chair ties press freedom to economic stability

Posted on by

How does press freedom factor into current global concerns over the financial markets and the drying up of credit?

I just went to a conference that discussed the relationship between the economy and the rule of law. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was featured as the keynote speaker. (See “Former Federal Reserve Chairman Predicts Economic Rebound.”)

In the middle of his remarks on how legal guarantees accorded to property rights and ownership have elevated general standards of living since the early 18th century, Greenspan pointed to how a free press, along with the protection of minority rights, has proven “the most effective form to safeguard [private] property.”

His argument is that the watchdog role of the press and its ability to inform the population contribute to economic stability.

“[D]emocracies rarely allow discontent to rise to a point that leads to explosive changes in economic regimes,” he said. This stands in contrast with authoritarian states that, even if operating under a capitalist economy, are “inherently unstable because [discontent] forces aggrieved citizens to seek redress outside the law.”

He quoted Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s observation that “no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press.”

Why is this? According to Greenspan, it’s because the news media in authoritarian regimes tend towards self-censorship. “[M]arket-interventionist policies – the most prevalent cause of disrupted distribution of food – go unreported and uncorrected until too late.”

So, if you’re living in a society with a relatively free press, consider the possibility that all the gloomy stories you’re reading about the economy might be helping to prevent an even greater crisis.

Parasite Consumes Host, Part 2 – What’s up with U.S. election coverage?

Posted on by

To some observers, the current U.S. news coverage of the presidential campaign is becoming nasty and shallow, with recent furors over trivia misstatements rather than issues.

Only dire economic troubles have managed to divert the media’s attention away from the pettier aspects of the campaign in recent days. It’s tempting to join the many voices lambasting journalists for “dumbing down” an exceedingly crucial election, but perhaps the finger of blame can be pointed at the connection between public demand for “info-tainment” and the fierce competition for advertising revenue that is needed to keep the news industry afloat.

It’s not news that traditional media stalwarts like The New York Times and The Washington Post, which regularly offer in-depth coverage of the issues, have entered days of financial insecurity. And a quick check of their Web sites shows which stories the public is reading and e-mailing to friends. In the wake of Sarah Palin’s nomination for vice president, for example, her views on the Georgia-Russia conflict aroused considerably less public interest than her daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy.

So, when you ask yourself why there are so few stories on the candidates’ positions on U.S. aid to Africa, but so many discussing whether or not McCain invented the Blackberry or debating Obama’s “celebrity” status, you need to follow the money. Or, thinking like an advertiser, follow the ratings.

As Digital Deliverance’s Vin Crosbie puts it: “The more consumers the vehicle attracts, the higher the rates the advertiser are willing to pay and the more money the vehicle earns.”

In the über-competitive world of news, the fight for advertising revenue means attracting the largest audience, which leads to “dumbing down” content to “attract a larger audience by appealing to a lower common denominator,” as Crosbie says. And that raises some questions about the role of the press in creating an informed electorate.

So, that’s what’s up with U.S. election coverage. Suggestions for improvement are welcome.

So many reporters, so little news?

Posted on by

In 2008, the U.S. cities hosting the Democratic and Republican conventions are being overrun with about 15,000 journalists.

Major American networks are sending their finest correspondents, bloggers will be out in force, and smaller outlets are finding hotel vacancies a distant memory and wireless-equipped workstations scarce.

Despite what the media frenzy might suggest, conventions don’t tend to be newsworthy. We already know Barack Obama and John McCain will be their parties’ nominees; we’ll know their running mates before the conventions convene; and we know the party platforms will be written broadly and probably blandly. The news media traditionally complain about conventions, using terms like “empty ritual,” “staged” and “choreographed.”

In 2004, The Weekly Standard’s Andrew Ferguson theorized each city actually is hosting two separate conventions – one for the delegates and political activists, and another for the journalists. As the political side has grown “wan and meaningless,” the media presence has become “larger, more elaborate, and more robust.” Journalists are expanding coverage for their own purposes, Ferguson argues, stating, “The parasite has consumed the host.”

In 2008, Slate.com’s Jack Shafer urged the news media either to limit its coverage to the bare-bones feed from the government/public affairs channel C-SPAN, or else hire effervescent sportscasters who “know how to make a game with a foregone conclusion seem entertaining.”

To which many journalists respond, “Wait – this year it’s different!” Ted Koppel, the former ABC anchor who walked out of the 1996 Republican convention in bored frustration, will be an analyst for BBC America. He told Courant.com blogger Roger Catlin, “This has been one of the most remarkable political years we’ve ever seen.”

CBS’s Jeff Greenfield says much of his coverage will focus on the supporters of runner-up candidates. “In both conventions, I would guess roughly half the delegates wanted somebody else,” he said.

Based on polling data from four years ago, Americans enjoy the media fixation on national conventions. The Vanishing Voter Project at Harvard University reported 63 percent of respondents said conventions are important because they provide an opportunity to get to know the candidates better.

For an inside look at what’s going on at the convention, check out our elections blog, Campaign Trail Talk.