On the Media; 1996-09-01; Covering the Conventions; Reporting on Labor; Part 1

From WNYC in New York, this is on the media. Well, there over the nineteen ninety six national political conventions certainly broke new ground, but not necessarily ground that needed to be broken. Politicians tried to penetrate voter apathy by virtually abandoning policy and politics and serving up big time productions full of sentiment and sympathy. Meanwhile, the media pounded about the lack of news and took up dramatic criticism, seeming more interested in the way speakers delivered their lines than in what was actually being said. And despite all the careful scripting America seems to have tuned out. Is it the political process or the way the media cover it? That's what we're looking at in this hour of on the media. So stay tuned [music] From National Public Radio News in Washington, I'm Ann ?Bosell? When the Democratic convention ended last week, the fundamental question the media were

raising was this Will the 1996 conventions mark the last time time the major networks and other media cover national political conventions? When we do this again in the year 2000, will conventions be treated like glorified rallies on a long whistlestop campaign? That's what many journalists considered them to be this year. If conventions are not places to battle for nomination and are no longer forums for passionate expression of clashing ideas, then what are they for? Should the media simply step back and let the two major parties make their best case on primetime once every four years? Or should the media ignore what the parties are trying to do and pursue another agenda of issues? How well, in fact, did the media succeed this time around? Without doubt, the stunning success of both parties at making sure nothing unscripted happened was brilliantly on display until despite their best laid plans, something actually happened.

A tawdry little sex scandal, to be sure, was what blew through the Democratic convention like a foul stench. But it was carried on a fresh breeze, it seemed, because at least it was real. And the way the media handled the story of Dick Morris and his call-girl on on on display at the convention is an important issue with a lot of serious implications all by itself. I'm Alex Jones. And on this edition of On the Media, we're looking at coverage of the conventions, Dick Morris and the campaign ahead. My guests are Marvin Kalb, director of the Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University, and a veteran television journalist. Marvin was very welcome to ?two? on the media. We're glad to have you. Thank you very much. Alex. Davis Merritt editor of The Wichita Eagle and author of Public Journalism and Public Life Why Telling the News is Not Enough. Buzz Merritt, we're very glad to have you as well. Glad to be here, thank you. And Deborah Potter also joins us. She's a member of the faculty of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies and a former

correspondent for CBS and CNN. Deborah, it's always a pleasure. Thank you, Alex. Thanks for having me. Marvin Kalb has the frustration of covering these conventions change the way all future conventions are going to be covered, do you think? I think this is probably the last time that there will be four nights devoted to a national convention. From that point of view, I tend to agree with the hypothesis that you laid out, but I do not believe that these national conventions are finished as a historic piece of American politics. I think they do have a purpose. You ask what that purpose might be. We could we could go into that whenever you wished. I think they do have a purpose. I think the press is not there to create an agenda. It is there simply to cover the story. If there is no story, fine, walk away. But there is a story there. I think it's lazy man's journalism to assume that there's nothing to report. Well, let me let me pursue what you were just what you were just saying.

If the political parties don't conform to your idea of what a convention should be and offer something, you know, substantive, what is the role of the media? I guess the first thing I'm saying is what do you think the conventions are for in this in this era and and how do you think they should be covered? Well, I was at both conventions and I I was impressed by something that was rather old fashioned, I guess. At both conventions, Republicans got together in San Diego and Democrats in Chicago. They got to know one another. There was a bonding process that went on. They examine the new leadership of each party and they certainly got a look at the new leadership as well. They examined what policies distinguished their party from the other they had a, I thought, an extraordinary opportunity to exchange views. And from what I saw, they did. So from that limited perspective, there is a purpose to these national conventions. And at the end of the day, at the end of the four nights, really, the American people, I

would maintain had a pretty good idea of what the candidates are going to stand for and what it is that the two parties are going to stand for and therefore what the campaign is all about. But did they do that by their reporting or by simply turning the cameras on? Well, there is a lot of just turning the cameras on that might be better, in fact, than some of the reporting. But I have a feeling that there was a forgive me, but I have a feeling there was a kind of laziness out there. There were stories in Chicago, there were stories in San Diego. What happens, Alex, is that when you get into these very large events, the cameras themselves seem to determine where and what the story is going to be. You bring in your top stars. They're down on the floor of the convention. They're there with the cameras and they can't seem to break out of the structure that the political party itself has created, but there is an opportunity to break out. There are many stories there you could have found out, for example, if at the Republican convention there were three percent blacks.

And yet the camera work suggested, particularly when Colin Powell spoke, that there might have been 25 percent blacks. That was one of the most interesting stories, in fact, that came out. I mean, after it happened, during that coverage, I mean, during Colin Powell's speech, the thing that came out of that speech more than anything that Colin Powell said was the way the networks covered the speech by having the cameras focused on black faces. In some cases, journalists who happen to be black and were sitting with delegations. [laughter] It's true. It's fascinating. Deborah Potter, you've been particularly impatient as well as along with Marvin Kalb, with media complaints that there wasn't any news at the conventions. What's your what is your take on the media attitude on covering these conventions? [Guest] I thought it was whiny. I mean, my sense was that there were journalists in San Diego and presumably in Chicago where I was not, who were walking around looking for the traditional things that journalists look for, conflict, argument, you know, extremes. And they were having trouble finding them.

And so they were annoyed that there was not right in front of them, laid out for all to see, all the ingredients that they normally like to put in, the stories do. And so they were whining and griping and and missing the point, I think, because I think Marvin is right. The networks, for example, made the mistake of promising that they would only do one hour. And so the parties stacked the hour and the networks got trapped. Whose fault is that? Well, not entirely. The parties, if you ask me, you know, you had people using what I consider to be the wrong yardstick, which is, well, this is all old news. We know all this about the parties. Boy, this is boring. There's no news here. Well, excuse me. You know, journalists have been covering this story, this campaign, these two candidates since the beginning of the year. And, yeah, they feel as though they know them pretty well. well. That doesn't hold true for the vast majority of the American people who only now are starting to pay attention. And now is a really good time for them to get the kind of look at the new leadership of the parties as, as Marvin puts it, and the policies that were there to be examined.

[Host] Well, in defense of whiny journalists everywhere, let me say that I think it's also true that the both parties went to enormous lengths to keep that kind of story that would highlight the differences of opinions and a and a careful scrutiny of the way the opinions and the the ideology, ideological debates within the parties are are unfolding. They really went to great lengths to keep that from happening. [Guest] That's true, Alex. And why did they do that? Because when they don't do that, they get beaten up in the press for failing to run a good convention. I mean, you know, they're the ones who are taken to task and told, well, you know, by the commentators and the analysts, you know, these people are not in control of their own convention. Ergo, how could they possibly run the country? I mean, that's that's what happens when you let that sort of thing bubble up, as it did very clearly in Houston with the Pat Buchanan speech and the Pat Robertson speech and other sort of very sharp edged speeches the last time around for the Republicans. So what a surprise that they don't want to get beaten up for that. [Host] Well, you know, you know, Deborah, you've raised an interesting point.

Do you think that these two conventions were covered the way they were because of the perceived impact on George Bush's candidacy of Pat Buchanan's speech that was considered to be a divisive one and frightened a lot of people? [Guest] Oh, I don't think it affected the coverage as much as it affected the parties. and their planning- [Host] Well, I mean, the fact that the parties and that they scripted these conventions so that there would be no more Pat Buchanan moments. [Guest] You betcha. That's exactly what was going on. [Host] Well, on the same- by the same token, I mean that- Pat Buchanan standing up and saying that reflected a reality that simply was not present in either one of these conventions. [Guest] Yes, but that's where the reporters come in. I mean, I tend to agree with Marvin that you can point the cameras at things, let people make their own decisions, let them judge. But when the truth is that there's another layer, that's where the independent reporting comes in. And we did see that. We saw reporters going out and seeking people out who had different views. [Host] [inaudible], let me ask you that- the Dick Morris scandal was about as far from the idea of public journalism as it's possible to imagine. But it seemed to me to be the most sort of refreshingly real moment that happened during either convention simply because it was real.

It was something that was unscripted. It was something that was- that was not expected, certainly. Was it important? Was it just, a, you know, an aberrant moment that titillated and therefore got a lot of attention or what do you think? [Guest] Well, first of all, I have to say that a seeing the Dick Morris story is distant from public journalism doesn't- doesn't ring true with me at all. Public journalism doesn't imply that you don't cover good stories. The question, though, on the Dick Morris thing, I think it's probably pretty much an irrelevancy that- that will be fairly quickly over. And I don't think it had much to do with the convention or- or anything else. But nevertheless, it was a story that obviously needed to be covered. But you see, I- I agree with what's been said so far, but there's another thing I would like to get at here for a minute. It has to do with conventions and elections. Is that during a political season, there are two things going on. There's the campaign and there's the election. And the campaign is what the candidates and the handlers do.

The election is what citizens do, which is make a choice. Our coverage of conventions and everything else is almost always solely focused on the campaign and not on the election. And the coverage would begin where citizens began, which is with the choice they face with the election. A lot less attention would get paid and should be paid to the campaigns and the manipulations, whether it's by parties or by journalists. And the Dick Morris stories would be there, but would be even less important. [Host] Well, the Dick Morris- [Guest] That's where we have to put our focus. [Host] I think in one part the Dick Morris story was important because, I mean, this is the very week that he appeared on the cover of Time magazine, whispering in Clinton's ear as the perceived Svengali of the Clinton campaign, the- the architect of the family values, you know, bridge to the future motif that was used so strongly at the Democratic convention. And, as you know, now the sort of the solid underpinning of the campaign

strategy for the Democratic Party. [Guest] Well- [Host] I mean, that- that seems to me to be something more than just a passing moment. [Guest] Well, but forgive me, it's more than a passing moment in the campaign because, it, you know, it has to do with tactics and strategy and all of the things that journalists love, particularly a a journalists on the coast love, you know, the tactics and the strategy, because that's their ballgame. And they're- they are an integral part of that ballgame. But it is not important, very important, it's much less important insofar far as the choices that- that voters finally are going to make. [Guest] Yeah, I agree. It's Deborah Potter. And, I think that the truth is, if the general public didn't much care about scandal when it affected a candidate four years ago, how much less are they going to care about a scandal that affects an adviser to a candidate? I mean, I think Davis, you know, he's right on the money there. We tend to look at conventions, for example, as about candidates and strategy,

when, in fact, it would be much more useful for viewers and readers to get some idea of policy and program out of these conventions. And that's where we drop the ball. [Host] Interesting. [Marvin] I have a feeling that there's- it's Marvin- I have a feeling there's less of a drop off there than we imagine. There really has been. If one reads two or three papers a day and watches some of the news programs and watches the Sunday programs, uh the radio shows, there's some marvelous programs on National Public Radio, for example, there is an enormous amount of explanatory journalism that we get routinely every single day. But it has become a good bit of the- of the- the talk of the trade, the buzz, as it's put, in New York anyway, that journalism doesn't do any of this. I don't think that's true at all. I think there's an enormous amount of very solid reporting that goes on. And a day to day basis in many newspapers and magazines, It simply is easy for us to attack journalism.

It's only- it's almost become- it's almost become a cottage industry. Evans at the Shorenstein Center, people come over there every single day and they think that the only reason it exists is to take on the press. It's not true. [Host] We're going to- [Marvin] It's to study the impact of the press upon public policy. And I think both happen. [Host] We're going to be getting to a to deeper into these subjects. When we come back, we want to hear from you. What do you think? How do you think the media covered the election- the- the conventions? Do you think they did a good job? Where did they drop the ball and where did they not? Our number is one 800 three, four, three three three four two. That's one 800 three, four, three, three, three, four, two. This is on the media from National Public Radio. I'm Alex Jones. We're back with all the media, we're calling this our conventional

wisdom. We're going to plumb the coverage of the conventions and see what we can make of the way not only the campaigns, but as Buzz Merritt says, one of our guests, the election itself, the political process, how it should be covered, and what are the lessons to be learned. 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, who's a faculty member at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. Marvin Kalb, before the break, you were talking about how you think the press does a better job than it gets credit for. [Guest] Yes, I think that. [Host] Make the case quickly, if you would. Why? OK, I, I think that the on a day to day basis, let's say that I live in Washington, D.C. and I pick up routinely The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. And I listen to NPR in the morning Morning Edition and maybe I'm lucky and I get to see All Things Considered, what you'll hear excuse me, All Things Considered in the evening.

Watch an evening news program. I am a very well-informed person, and the reason I am is that the press consistently does provide information that is relevant and is important. Are there excesses? Of course. Could they do more of it? Of course. But are they doing overall a good job? And my answer overwhelmingly, enthusiastically is yes. [Host] Buzz Merritt, do you agree? [Guest] I would not be as overwhelmed or as as enthusiastic I don't think so, but [laughter] But yeah, on the whole. On the whole, a a pretty good job. But if we were doing the sort of job that that sometimes we like to think we do, I think people would be more engaged than they are. And I think, you know, insofar as we succeed in telling the story properly of the political process and democracy, if we do that well, people will be more engaged. And that's really what we're the thrust of.

My thinking is to try to do our journalism in a way that that engages people even more. [Host] Well, let me ask you, Deborah Potter, to get even, you know, sort of deeper into this idea of how we cover campaigns, how we covered this election and how we covered the conventions. How do you see, first of all, the distinction between the way print and broadcast went at the coverage of the of the two conventions? [Guest] Well, yes, to some degree I do. And I also see distinctions within broadcast as as a category. But on the other hand, I have to tell you that the whining I referred to earlier was heard from all sides, including print reporters who are complaining that they had nothing to write about. So, I don't think it's exclusively the function of a broadcast reporter to to complain and let the print people have at it. But I do think that there's a big difference here. And much of what we heard in terms of the difference, next time around, we'll never see it again. That sort of thing had to do with networks. And one reason is that the commercial pressures are just so much greater than they were in the past. Networks are much less inclined to give over

a good deal of prime time to something like a political convention, even though, by the way, they still get commercials in, they do have longer chunks of airtime being given over to programing. So I just think that we saw a good deal of difference between the three major broadcast networks and their point of view and let's say cable television, which sees this as exactly the reason it exists. C-SPAN, for example, just put the plug in, turn the camera on and said, here's what's happening, folks. And people watched apparently quite a quite a good deal. CNN had a good deal more talking head chatter, but they also carried much more than the broadcast networks did. And we have the new entry of MSNBC, which was doing its own thing, both public television. I think the public television, NBC partnership is really remarkable. You could stick with public television through the evening, but get additional information and reporters backgrounders and analysis from the NBC people there as well. I mean, the one thing that sticks with me after the event

is the complaining about the ratings being down and acting as though that were the party's fault. But if you look at a recent poll, people who said that they wanted to hear more analysis at the convention, which is what the networks were giving them, there were only 25 percent of them who said that, whereas 53 percent said they wanted to see more of the convention. Thank you very much. [Host] Well, I mean, in fairness, hasn't the hasn't the public gotten more exposure to this convention than any any two conventions in history because of the way cable television? I mean, even the Comedy Channel is covering it. [laughter] Absolutely. Yes. I think there is more available. I do worry, though, about it being a network decision to say, well, we'll leave it to cable because as much as cable has penetrated the country. Not everybody's got it and it costs money, so that worries me a little bit. [Guest] It is interesting, however, it's Marvin, just a quick point. It's interesting that on one night, I think it was the last night of the Republican convention, but somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that.

For the first time in the history of television, cable got a higher rating than the three biggest. You mean cable? Cumulatively, yes. Cumulatively got a higher rating than did CBS, ABC, NBC. You know, I think that's really an extraordinary moment. [Host] Marvin, do you mean the stations that were carrying the the convention or do you mean everything from HBO to Lifetime to CNN? [Guest] I am not certain of that, Alex. I'm not certain of that. I just know that Gerald Levin, who is the head of Time Warner, made that point in a panel discussion that we ran that that that during the Republican convention. I think the implication strongly was that the cable coverage of the conventions topped the commercial television coverage. [Host] And that's that that is very surprising. I mean, that would be astonishing. In fact, I gave you my source [laughter] and it's it's Deborah Potter. I'm not sure that's right, frankly, I think it was cumulative.

But even so, remember, on C-SPAN, we have no ratings. They don't buy ratings. We don't know how many people watch them. But I can tell you that everyone in San Diego who couldn't be on the floor was watching C-SPAN because that's how you can see it. Well to be a bit of a to be a bit of a skeptic about this. One way you could interpret what Gerald Levin said, if it was indeed cumulative, is that people were fleeing what was on network television in record numbers, meaning fleeing the convention. But the convention was only on for one one of those hours. I mean, you know, it's not as though [Host] but that was when he said it happened. Correct? You know, I mean, it's you know, I guess you can numbers [Host] are funny. [Guest] Yes, well, we know about statistics, don't we? [Host] you can you can think anything. When we come back, we're going to take more of your calls. Our number here is one 800, three, four, three, three, three, four, two. We want to know what you think about the way the media covered the convention and the Dick Morris story. One 800, three, four, three, three, three, four, two. This is on the media from National Public Radio. [music] [music]

I'm Alex Jones. We're back with on the media talking about coverage of the political conventions and in fact, the election to come 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 in St. Petersburg, Florida. I want to get some of our listeners in on this conversation. Kathleen in Ashland, New Hampshire, you're on the air. Hi. I'm not actually addressing the convention. What I wanted to talk about was the media and how it handles politics. OK, and up here in New Hampshire, we're about to come into a a governor's race, which is there's no incumbent. And the media has decided the major the major newspaper, the public TV station and the public radio station and New England Cable Cable, which is a major cable station, has decided to put on a debate for the Republican governor's race. And my comment is that number One, they're loaning more credibility automatically to the Republicans by doing that, by

not having a Democrats debate. And I just think that as a result, they're really citing the the the way that the outcome of the election may come. [Host] Well, you know, let me ask Buzz Merritt to comment on this, because this is I'm from Tennessee, from a region in Tennessee that happens to be Republican in the Republican primary is tantamount to the election. Where I come from, if you go to another part of the state, it's the Democratic primary that that is the tantamount to the election. What do you think Buzz Merritt? Is it is it something that is an obligation or should the reality of the political situation reflect the way the debates are structured? [Guest] Well, I think I think one thing you have to recognize is that people pay us as journalists for our judgment about the relative importance of things. I mean, millions of things happen in the world every day and and they pay us to sort some of that out. So I think you do have to make some tough judgments about, you know, without I don't know whether what's happening in New Hampshire or what happened in

Tennessee is, you know, like I was the right thing to do or not. But well, let me run into this. You see, particularly with when you get beyond Democrats and Republicans into other minor so-called minor party candidates, how much of our resources must we devote? And we've we always every election year have to make some tough news judgments about the relative importance. [Host] Well, let me let me pursue this with you just a bit more, because I think that you and the Wichita Eagle have have been on the forefront of declaring that you're not going to be, you know, party to publicity stunts no matter who the who the author of that publicity stunt is in a political sense. And what this has done is my understanding is brought to you in conflict with issues oriented groups as well as political parties, environmentalists, people on various sides of who knows what kind of issue. How do you sort of, you know, get around that? I mean, how are you doing the job that you think you're you're you're supposed to do at the same time, you know, satisfying people who are going to

great lengths to get your attention? [Guest] Well, merely because someone goes to great lengths to get our attention doesn't mean they have anything relevant to say in the sense of what we see as our job and we see as our job as as helping with the election and not so much with the campaign to use the distinction I made before. And I well, you may be we have a situation where some environmentalist are called a press conference and held up this jar of ugly brown water and and called it T. Heart's Toxic T referring to a Republican incumbent candidate in the congressional race here. Well, so what? I mean, we are going to during the course of the campaign, be writing about the environmental issue and we'll write about it in great depth. But we're not going to be jerked into writing about it because some

group or whatever group pull some stunt and thinks that that has to do with helping people make the decision. They have to make [Host] Kathleen, thank you [Guest] their campaign, not the election. Kathleen, thank you very much for your call. Alison in Brookline, Massachusetts. You're on the air. Hi there. Hi there. I agree with Marvin Kalb that the American media covers politics and policy in vast detail every day. It's there for anyone who wants to be informed. And I do get a little tired of hearing people like Buzz, blame the media for the average American kind of lack of education or lack of involvement in politics. So I'm wondering what your panel thinks might get people excited about politics and voting this year? [Host] Well, let me ask Marvin Kalb that. I mean, Marvin, the thing is, if they doing such a good job, why are so many people seem to be turned off? [Guest] It's a good question, and we've been agonizing about that for years, I don't have a quick answer on that, I do feel what I said before is right. I think that overall the press does a first-rate job. People are unhappy not just with the press, which tends to represent large institutions.

The public, according to many, many studies that have been done in the last 10 years, the public is turned off by just about every large institution, including the Congress, the presidency, even hospitals in the neighborhood. They're turned off by a lot of this stuff. Now, why is that the case? It is easy to say that the press is put into the same collection of despised and not despised, but distrusted institutions at this point, there is there is less public confidence in large institutions led by the U.S. government. But that doesn't mean that the press, because it is lumped in this way, cannot be pulled out of the grouping of distrusted institutions and examined, as we have tried to do objectively, and come in with a conclusion that basically they're doing OK. The larger question is why are the American people losing confidence in large, significant institutions of their lives?

That's a bigger question. Deborah Potter. [Guest] Yes, I'd like to try and answer Alex's question, which was what's going to get people excited about politics here? And I think that's an excellent question. And to some degree, I think it depends on the candidates, much as I I I appreciate Buzz's point of view that we have to start with the citizens. I do think that to some degree, for citizens to get interested, candidates have to give them a real choice. And so I think the news media can help by pointing out the differences and the real choices that will be made if one candidate is elected versus another. 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.