On the Media; 1996-09-01; Reporting on Labor; Part 2; Covering the Conventions

But one of the problems we face this year with with the sort of projection of dullness in this campaign is that a lot of the the There is a lot of sameness between these two candidates and their party's positions now. Now, that may be the way the country is going, in fact, and it may be a reflection of the truth of the American people, which is we're much more in the middle than we are out of the extremes. The news media has to get with it and realize that that's the case and get off the extremes and actually begin examining the slight, more slight and delicate differences that exist around the middle. Maybe that will get people interested if they know there's a difference. You know, I think that's precisely the point. A major point is that most people do exist more toward the middle, but the attention of the media is always, almost always toward the extremes. And on the point of institutional lack of institutional respect all over, I think you have to at least give some thought to this, that where do most people learn most of what they know about these institutions that they hate, including politics?

They learn it from journalists. Hmm. Alison, thank you very much for your call. Interesting. Charlie in Ridgewood, New Jersey. You're on the air. Yeah, I'm enjoying your show, Alex. I think that I really agree with Marvin Kalb. The the press is representing large institutions, not the majority of the people, and I'm very upset that when you introduce this show, you know, you brought up sex scandal like three times. You compare the two conventions, assuming they were both not specific. I found the Democratic Convention had specific issues. I am very upset that all during both conventions call shows like this weren't, you know, emphasized. People aren't let in on the process. I'm very upset that Debra Potter said people are just now beginning to pay attention. I mean, Debra Potter, how dare you say that? I mean, you're a journalist or in the media, whatever. This is why we lose respect for the institution. Well, let me ask Deborah Potter to respond.

[Guest] Well, I mean, I'm delighted that you've been paying attention all year long. I would point out to you that turnout in primaries this year was incredibly low. But if you ask a lot of Americans basic informational facts about the candidate, at least before the two conventions, you found that well over half the American people didn't know that Bob Dole had served in World War Two. This suggests to me I don't mean it in the way you have interpreted it. It suggests to me that people just weren't interested or engaged up to that point. And what my problem is, is that the news media think it's all old hat by now for most people. And I don't think it is. I think there's still a point at which people can be made interested, can get involved in in politics and pay attention to politics. And we shouldn't be sitting back. Journalists shouldn't be sitting back and saying, oh, but we did that story months ago. [Host] You know, it's an interesting point. Marvin Kalb didn't have you seen academic analysis of when people actually start paying attention to a political, you know, presidential campaign election situation? [Guest] Yes. Yes, indeed. We've done a lot of studies of that sort.

And almost all of them say that the American people get genuinely and deeply involved. This is certainly true, was certainly true in the 88 in 92 campaigns as late as October and in the 92 campaign. I don't have the exact figure in my head, but it was way over 50 percent of the American people said two things, which astonished me. One was that they got absorbed in the campaign at the time of the debates, and two, that it was not the reporting, but the televised negative ads or take out negative the televised political ads where where they got most of their information about both campaigns. In other words, journalists. You haven't been doing it exactly right up to this point. And that that is a large and significant issue. By the way, the caller made a point about Alex, about your lead in. [Host] Yes. [Guest] And let me just pick up this. This because I mean, what the heck your our host [Host] absolutely have at it.

You use the you know, use the quote. I just wrote it down here. The parties abandoned politics and policy at both conventions. I don't think that's true at all. I think that what you got at both conventions was the affirmation of each party's politics and their stand and the policies that they hope to follow. If Senator Dole lays out his 15 percent tax cut and then explains the things that are going to happen as a result of that. And of course, he explains it all in a very positive way. That's policy. That's big time spending. [Host] When does it become an infomercial that is not really about policy, but about presenting an image of something that really doesn't necessarily reflect any kind of a difference of opinion within the party and address sort of the the contentious parts of it? That's really what I was trying to get at. [Guest] Alex, the idea of the infomercial business, that is certainly true, but that, in a sense has nothing to do with journalism, journalism is supposed to stick to the news after they've made the point and they made it ad nauseum at both conventions, that these are highly scripted events.

When were they not scripted events? Go I go back I'm sorry, [Guest] 1952, I think [Host] 1952 as I was about to say, Deborah, thank you. Was about the last time that you had a genuinely unscripted event. Well, these things have been increasingly scripted as television has become increasingly more important. And the central vehicle for dispensing information. [Guest] the shorthand of scripted means that that everything was every speaker's remarks were absolutely vetted and had to be approved ahead. I mean, there was a kind of a control this time that there has never been. I mean, that was this is what we were talking about earlier, was the reaction to Pat Buchanan leaving the reservation last time at the Republican convention. And this, you know, nobody said a word that wasn't prescreened. Absolutely. And when Pat did that talk back in 92, that was also seen by people who ran the campaign, they simply decided that, OK, let him say it, in other words.

And this time they think the scripting was done in such a manner as to prevent any of that from happening. Absolutely. Well, that's I guess that's what I was getting at. If I if I if I if I said it improperly, then then so be it. But that's really what I was trying to address when I want to thank Charlie. You did raise another point, though, about the about the Demorris scandal. I think that one of the reasons that story was important was because of the way it happened and the timing of it and the way effectively it was manufactured to a degree by Rupert Murdoch, or at least that's my guess. I think that what I have not seen very much reporting about is the fact that the star, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, basically paid the hooker for the story. They put it in the star, but it had not been published. The star effectively laundered the story through The New York Post, which will not pay somebody to to for a story, but will do what it did on the Thursday issue of The New York Post, which is put it on the front page and in

effect, introduce it into the news cycle in a little more legitimate vehicle than the star, which is also a Murdoch publication. So the star pays for the story. They run it at the very moment when it's most damaging to Clinton. The Post put it, puts it on the front page and every other newspaper and news organization in the country all of a sudden is talking about this, that they not necessarily would not have been if it had just appeared in the star alone. Now, Marvin Kalb, you think I'm wrong? [Guest] No, no, I don't think you're wrong about that at all. And I think that is a terrific subject to study. And I think you're absolutely right that journalists ought to look into motivation, how that story broke, how it ended up with the post. There was a good piece in The Washington Post about that and in The New York Times, maybe in a lot of other newspapers, too. I haven't seen them, but my sense is that this is a juicy story to pursue. And I haven't seen enough information. I haven't either. I think it hasn't been done enough. [Host] Listen, Charlie, thank you for your call. Frank, in Salt Lake City, you're on the air. Hey I'm one of the problems that they gripe about the CBC

and NBC. And the ?felicitation? is that you couldn't get get anything on there. You know, you come home from work and you don't get to see anything during the daytime. You come home and you see all these other programs to get to see all the time. And then on C-SPAN that I do have doesn't have anything after six o'clock except for the president's speech and the Dole speech in the evening The rest of the stuff is you get to the crap that you don't even want to ?watch?. [Host] What did you what would you have liked to have seen? [Caller] I would I would like to see both of them make my decision. And then then they turn around and bring this Morris thing out. You know, I think that was just a set up. I think that was set up so that there was going to come out just as the day the time the president was going to talk. Well, I think you're probably right about that. And if you know, all we've heard, you know, you could talk about what you want, but all you can hear is that the billions of dollars it's cost us from the Republicans turn around the spending, all that money on these things, on Watergate and all under Clinton and all that stuff. And then they just bring it on and on and on. And they spent, what, thirty six million dollars just for his thing.

And they it just never dies. [Host] Well, let me let me ask you, Buzz Merritt, do you think that the story of how the Morris thing happened is going to have is that going to be a story with legs or is that going to be dropped along with the Morris scandal itself? [Guest] No, I think it has some legs. I hope it doesn't gallop on into February or March. I hope we're good enough as journalists to get it resolved and solved and written about by then. But sure. Absolutely. It's there are a lot of of serious questions. That in that whole situation, and it needs to be looked at very closely. [Host] I mean, what would you have done if you had not seen this come pouring over the AP? I mean, would it would it have? How would you have handled that story if somebody had brought a copy of the star and dropped it on your desk on Thursday and said, gosh, Buzz, we've got to go with this? [Guest] Oh, well, I mean, it's it's out there. Sure. I mean, you can you can say that the star is some, you know, another kind of publication if you want to.

But if the story is is in any way verifiable, it's a story you can't ignore. You have to do it again. The the important thing is the relative importance that you put on that story. Vis a vis everything else that's going on. You know, that cannot be the dominant story on the morning that that the party formally nominates a president. It's a very you know, I suppose the question. Yes, Deborah. [Guest] Buzz, where did you play it? We've seen where other newspapers play the president's speech at the top and the the secondary Morris story below the fold. Was it on your front page? [Guest] Yes, but it was below the fold and part of, you know, part of our convention package, which did dominate the front page of our paper. But, yes, it was there. I mean, we don't get to to to say that this doesn't happen, that it didn't happen and people might not be interested in it or some people might even consider it of some importance. [Host] Marvin, did you have a comment? [Guest] No, the comment I had was a very brief one. To the best of my knowledge. The story was dropped off on the editor's desk at the

Chicago Trib on Friday, early afternoon. They tried to check it out to get some kind of confirmation. Got none. So it did not appear in Thursday morning's paper, but it did, of course, appear as a front page story in Friday morning's paper because it was in everybody's head by that time [Host] And because, and because he resigned. I think that was something maybe something else. Alex, that's absolutely right on target. I think it would have been handled quite differently if there were not the fact of the resignation itself. Frank in Salt Lake City, thank you for your call. We are glad to to hear from you. And we'll be back with our panelists talking more about the convention. Our number, one 800 three, four, three, three, three, four, two. This is on the media from National Public Radio [music] I'm Alex Jones, we're back with On the media talking about the coverage of the

conventions, the Morris story and the way the political campaign is going to be evolving. We're talking with Marvin Kalb, director of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University, Buzz Merritt, editor of The Wichita Eagle. And Deborah Potter, faculty member of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. Let's see. ?Narish? in Quakertown, Pennsylvania. You're on the air. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. And I enjoy your show whenever I get time to listen to your comments. Well, thank you. And because it comes right after our Indian program. And so there's a good chance to hear as to what is happening, although the media and the press and the journalist were all doing a fine job and overall fine job on reporting national as well as international news and issues. But still, there is a room that media and the press and the journalist should do something to have more

and more impartial reporters and reporters without being prejudice. I will see C-SPAN is doing a good job to put the coverage of the events, but there are many people who cannot watch C-SPAN all the time. [Host] Well, let me ask Buzz Merritt [Caller] I'll hang up and watch for your comment. OK, well, I'd like Buzz Merritt to address that issue, Buzz? help me with the issue. [Host] Well, the issue is why isn't the press more impartial and objective than it is? [Guest] Why isn't it? [Host] Yes. [Guest] Of [Host] or do you disagree with the premise? Well, no, I think there's I think there's a great deal of effort to be fair, in a in the sense of, you know, nonpartisanship not being politicized. My my problem about what I think is often perceived as unfairness or and or sensationalism is because we choose consistently choose, I think, the wrong things to go after in terms of what we think news

is. And I think that causes a lot more problems with readers than even the notion, which is fairly widespread, that somehow we are, you know, partisan in the liberal versus conservative sense. Thank you for your call. Appreciate it. Oh, I'm sorry, Deborah. Yes, go ahead. [Guest] Just very quickly, I think that's true. And I also think that to some degree, what you see in the press is a bias that is that is toward the cynical, which is different from skeptical. I mean, I do think that we in the media have become more negative to the point where I was told by a congressional reporter that had she written a positive story or she tried to write a positive story about the resignation of Bob Dole from the Senate earlier this year and got all kinds of trouble from her colleagues. You know, in fairness, when something like Dick Morris happens and this is the guy who was the architect of the family values strategy for the Democratic Party, I mean, it doesn't take a lot to become cynical about something like that, about the way the parties sort of espouse these values, when, in fact, you know, someone like Dick

Morris is the architect behind them. Right. [Guest] Yeah. Go ahead, Marvin. [Host] Marvin? [Guest] No, I think Alex's point is right on target. It's absolutely correct. And and I think both all of us are talking about something that is, in my mind, truly significant, and that is that the news in this world of, quote, media, has lost its distinctiveness. People are no longer sure when they read or listen or watch news, hard news that they're getting it any longer because everything has been blurred, lines have been blurred, and people now feel that in this media world, a talk show is an expression of hard news. It isn't. It's an expression of somebody's opinion. We are on this program expressing our opinion. We're not giving hard news. If Deborah Potter were standing in front of the White House as she has many times in broadcast ?to me? from the State Department. We tried very hard to give you the straight news, but on this program, we're giving you opinion and people listening may confuse those things.

And that is where I think a lot of the problem rests. I agree. I get I got an astonishing and scary number of people who tell me when I you know, they're not reading a newspaper anymore because they get their news from talk radio, literally. Yes. And yes, I know. Well, all that does is [Guest] That doesn't mean you, Alex. Well, I think that I think that one of the things that one of the pieces of research that I found most fascinating years ago when I first saw it is that the most credible source of information is what somebody tells you, what someone with their own mouth tells you. And somehow talk show format has that quality. Probably not as persuasive as your next door neighbor, but it has that quality of being somehow something something that someone is telling you, you think that they are certainly telling you what they think and you give some particular credibility to that. That's an interesting point. ?Dhoti? in Columbus, Ohio. You're on the air. Sorry. Yes. I thank you for taking my call. I want to compliment NPR. I think the journalists there do as good a job as anybody. [Host] Well, thanks. [Caller] I do have one complaint during the campaign.

I happen to be a liberal. And nowhere is anyone saying that Clinton is not a liberal. He is not. That leaves those of us who have a liberal persuasion. are sort of out in the cold. They don't have anybody to vote for. There is the Green Party. Well, now, ?Dhoti? you've raised an interesting point, because this is one of the things that the Democrats and the Republicans in a different in the different direction tried their mightiest to make invisible. And that is the fracture between the moderate and liberal side of the Democratic Party and the moderate and very conservative side of the Republican Party. [Caller] That's right. [Host] You know, Marvin Kalb, what's the what's the situation? I mean, how how should this be covered? Is this a legitimate issue for press coverage in the political campaign? Or is this something that is really beside the point? If if the president is announcing his platform and that is what what he's campaigning on? [Guest] No, I don't think it's beside the point at all. And I think the lady is raising a very good point. These definitions today are extremely difficult

to come up with and to satisfy a majority of the American people. What is a liberal? At this particular point I could only shrug my shoulders and say, God knows, because you listen to Dole and you listen to Clinton. It would seem to me that you would have a pretty good idea if you were a liberal where you would want to be there. You may not have 100 percent satisfaction, but in this world, where do you get 100 percent satisfaction, particularly in the world of politics? But if he can be satisfied, 60, 70 percent that this particular person is more in your direction than the other, that person is for you, a liberal. I don't know how else to put it. [Host] That's interesting. [Guest] Alex, I think the caller raises a very good point, which is that there are other parties out there and you hardly ever see very much about that being reported. And perhaps the conclusion of the point she's making is there ought to be more reporting about the the minor parties, because at the moment they're they're almost

invisible and they really do represent clear choices from the two mainstream parties. Dhoti, thank you very much for your call. Appreciate it. [Host] Buzz Merritt, we've got about 30, 40 seconds left. How do you see this campaign shaping up now in the next two two months as far as liberal as far as media coverage is concerned? Do you think it's going to be more of the same, like 1992 or different? [Guest] I think some things are changing. I have seen some change since about 1990, not as much as I'd like to see, but I think there is there is a great deal more thoughtfulness going into it. I think some of the there is more attention being paid to the the choice that voters have to make rather than the antics of the campaign. And I'm very encouraged about that. I'll be watching very closely, of course, this time to see to see if that continues. [Host] We're going to be watching very closely as well. I want to thank my guests who have given us a very, very interesting hour. And I want to thank you and for it, Marvin Kalb, director of the Shorenstein Center for

the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. Buzz Merritt, Wichita Eagle's editor and author of Public Journalism and Public Life. And Deborah Potter, faculty member of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. The producer for On the Media is Judith Hepburn Blank with associate producer Jennifer Nix and assistant producer ?Kavida Mennen? Production assistant Deborah Clar. Our technical director is George Edwards with audio engineer George Wellington. And we want to have to offer a special thanks at NPR to Gary Henderson, who helped us with engineering there. I'm Alex Jones. [music] If you have questions or comments about on the media, call one 800 three, four, three three three four two. Funding for On the Media is provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, the Edith and

Henry Everett Foundation, the WNYC Foundation and National Public Radio. This program is a production of WNYC New York Public Radio in association with the Poynter Institute for Media Studies at St. Petersburg, Florida. This is NPR National Public Radio.