Right-wing media critics (professional and amateur alike) contend that the big media story of the 2004 campaign was the blog-spawned exposure of the mainstream press's liberal bent and its anti-Bush fabrications.

There's also a wave of self-flagellation going on right now as some "blue-state" editors do public contrition for their alleged blindness to "red-state" values.

But many other media critics are coming to the conclusion that the most dramatic lesson of this campaign is that the impartial, unemotional postwar model of mainstream journalism simply may not be up to covering the current political climate.

The argument: Out of fear of appearing too partisan or adversarial, the press failed to sufficiently demand answers to important questions, failed to prevent outright falsehoods from gaining currency, failed to uncover deception, malfeasance and incompetence in our most powerful institutions, failed to pierce the façade of cynically stage-managed events, and failed to demand accountability from our leaders.

And now, with the second Bush administration in the offing, the mainstream press faces four more years with a president whose contempt for it is easily measured by his refusal to meet with it regularly — or directly answer its questions when he does.

NYU journalism chair Jay Rosen, writing in his influential blog, wonders if Bush's victory will lead to the rise of an "opposition press" — or at least one with a stronger spine.

"Big Journalism cannot respond as it would in previous years: with bland vows to cover the Administration fairly and a firm intention to make no changes whatsoever in its basic approach to politics and news. The situation is too unstable, the world is changing too rapidly, and the press has been pretending for too long that its old operating system will last forever. It won't."

One immediate problem is that, in the administration's view, "the press is weak, and almost passé," Rosen writes. "There is no need to deal with it most of the time. It can be denied access with impunity. It can be attacked for bias relentlessly, which charges up Bush supporters. It can be fed gruel in plush surroundings and will come back the next day. The Bush crowd has completely changed the game on journalists, knowing that journalists are unlikely to respond with action nearly as bold. For example, would the press ever pull out of Iraq as a signal to the Bush White House? Never, and this is why it is seen as weak."

And in a Live Online discussion on washingtonpost.com on Nov. 4, New Yorker writer Seymour Hersh wrote that "the major media have been part of the problem since 9-11, merely because they have far too often taken the president's public utterances at face value. There also is a terrific unwillingness, perhaps understandable (though not by me), to make a moral judgment about a president's policies."

These critiques join some that predate the election.

Edward Wasserman, a professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University, wrote in the Miami Herald on Nov. 1 that the mainstream media, obsessed with horserace coverage, let partisans set the national agenda, and let the public believe important things that aren't true.

Los Angeles Time media columnist Tim Rutten wrote on Oct. 30 that "there's a growing sense that this race may involve tectonic shifts in the landscape of political journalism. It's still much too early to recognize clearly, let alone chart, what the new lay of the land may be."

One obvious shift: "This election year marked the end of the mainstream broadcast networks' serious participation in American political journalism and the decisive rise to influence of the cable news operations."

Howell Raines cites 'thug politics'

Former New York Times executive editor Howell Raines, writing in the St. Petersburg Times on Oct. 31, blamed the Internet and Fox news for eroding the value of facts "as shaping forces in American public life" and for destroying public trust in the traditional model of journalism. But at the same time, he recognized that what he called "thug politics" was a challenge to that model.

"The Bush-Cheney-Rove technique of treating any reasoned response as an opponent's attempt to divide America has proven so effective that momentous issues - the dismantling of federal environmental enforcement, Halliburton's war profiteering, the Vietnam-like disenchantment of professional military officers - are inadequately addressed on the stump or in campaign coverage."

Media critic David Shaw wrote in an Oct. 17 column in the Los Angeles Times about the media failure laid bare when the public was surprised by John Kerry's performance during the debates.

"What I think happened in that first debate is that Americans had the chance to see (and evaluate) both men standing and speaking on their own, without the filter of handlers or the news media. Handlers, of course, are supposed to filter, indeed to spin, to obfuscate and exaggerate — to make their candidates appear as attractive as possible and to make their opponents seem as unattractive as possible. That's what they get paid to do.

"But the news media are not supposed to obfuscate or exaggerate. They're supposed to illuminate. They're supposed to strip away the filters, counter the spin and give the voters as clear a picture as possible of who the candidates really are and what they really stand for.

" What the post-debate shift in voters' perceptions of Kerry ultimately tells me, much as I hate to say it, is that the news media have done a pretty poor job of campaign coverage. If Kerry can so dramatically change how people perceive him in just 90 minutes on television — without benefit of any real knockout punches by him or serious blunders by Bush, without a genuine, confrontational debate format — it suggests to me that the media hadn't fulfilled their responsibility to tell voters what Kerry is really like, what he stands for, what he would do, who he is."

Where does the press go from here?

Rosen wonders if a network like CNN needs to emerge as the "Democratic" alternative to the Republican-leaning Fox News, allowing it to more boldly voice a dissenting view. But there is nothing overtly partisan about questioning authority. Opposition to deception and distortion doesn't make one a Democrat; it makes one a journalist.

This is only the beginning of what is sure to be a lively, ongoing and important debate – on this Web site and elsewhere. We encourage you to post your comments below.

In particular, we want to know: Where do you think we go from here? What are the important questions we should be asking ourselves? And what role can the Nieman Watchdog Project play?

TO BE CONTINUED

Dan Froomkin is the deputy editor of the Nieman Watchdog Project. He is also Washington Bureau Chief for the Huffington Post. E-mail: froomkin@niemanwatchdog.org

Comments

Submit a comment - Jump to bottom of list

Election? Posted by Frank Kashuk - 11/08/2004, 07:38 PM The fraudulent charade, masquerading as a "fair election" in Ohio, CANNOT be allowed to stand without a thorough examination and a recount. The very basis of democracy is the ability of citizens to influence their government through the electoral process. When paperless electronic voting machines are discovered to have made innumerable mistakes; when prospective voters are turned away from the polls because the lines stretch for hours-long waits; when there are huge numbers of cast ballots that are not even counted due to "spoilage"; then it is time to call a halt to the perception that we have a legitimate result and DEMAND that the outcome be controlled by the will of the people as they expressed it on election day, rather than the manipulation of computer programmers and hackers and the malfeasance of election officials who so cavalierly disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of citizens. As for President Bush, he should be more circumspect about bragging that he intends to spend his newly acquired "political capital", since we all know that it is "counterfeit" and, once that is proven, he will have to pay it back. WITH INTEREST!

another hair shirt? Posted by rocky scott - reporter, tallahassee democrat 11/09/2004, 03:18 PM another election, another round of breast-beating, gloomy introspection and media (read it: print) self-flagellation. Hair shirts, blue light special, aisle three. I've been a reporter since 1975 and in every presidential election, we seem to stumble through silly rounds of agonizing re-appraisal about how we covered the election, how we were wrong and why, really, it wasn't/isn't our fault. barf. what we haven't done in between elections is take seriously the task of training - academically and professionally - reporters (not "journalists") who understand their craft and their role in the process. This problem isn't new, but we act surprised every time it pops up. In 1988, while UPI bureau chief in Tallahassee (shortly before that august organization went down for the third time), I was talking to another capital reporter. I mentioned something about reporters covering politics and was cut off by my conversational companion. "I am not a reporter," quoth he, "I am a political writer." Indeed. "Then do us all a favor," I replied. "Go sell insurance." In fact, he teaches English today at a state university. In saving our business another embarassment, I may have set the langauge back 100 years. My point is this: (print) reporters, particularly those associated with political coverage have become, by and large, interpreters first and observers second, instead of the other way around. To paraphrase Walter Mears (yes, i worked for the AP, too), "If you can't cover a six-car fatal on I-10, you have no business being in this business." Our political "coverage" now consists of writing about dueling press conferences/stump speeches wherein news is NOT committed. We duly note that fact, the write the damn story anyway! Here's a novel suggestion (broadcasters, you can join in): the next time a candidate gives the same numbingly familiar speech, say so - and then write about a relevant issue. And wouldn't it be a hoot if the big three networks, during a presidential campaign, announced one night the candidates had given the same speech they'd given all week, so news had not been committed - and let's move to a more relevant story? Other issues are in play, here, of course: slavish devotion to "demographics" telling us "what the readers want" (cry havoc!! I thought that was why they paid us such ridiculously high salaries - for our news judgment), merger mania that has resulted in a focus on stock price instead of quality reporting and a serious breakdown in newsroom quality and dedication (remember when copy editors used to be at the TOP of the wage scale? Unfortunately, banana slugs have better institutional memories. Last Friday, a major network led its nightly newscast trumpting the bright unemployment picture. My heavens, more than 330,000 new jobs had been created in October, the most in 7 months. Well, yes. But many of them were related to the hurricane devastation in Florida and what the story did NOT mention was the unemployment rate climbed in October. Sigh. Us ink-stained wretches aren't fairing all that well, either. I give you Fallujah. We apparently are doing battle with Satan and his/her dark forces - or at least a horde of crazed killers. Can the marines pull it off? Will they survive the onslaught of the Huns? Stay tuned. We're flacking for the establishment - again - rather than reporting. Those of us who shoot "-ly" words on sight and attack comma clause leads at every opportunity know we can do better. well. some days.

1stlede-correction Posted by rocky scott - reporter, tallahassee democrat 11/09/2004, 03:22 PM yes, i meant "then" instead of "the" and i know it's "faring," not fairing" so sue me

The Impartiality Myth Posted by Jeff Gannon - White House Correspondent, Talon News 11/09/2004, 08:47 PM Journalistic impartiality is a long-running myth that has only been recently exposed by news networks like Fox and the internet. While some may believe that the press corps has not been tough enough on the Bush administration, I know first hand that it is politically driven. How else can you explain the forged documents and lawsuits over access to the President's military service records and not a single question posed to candidate Kerry about his refusal to authorize the release of his COMPLETE military records during the campaign? There are many more examples I can cite. CNN being more Democratic? You're kidding right?

Truth in reporting Posted by Mark York - Journalism Student 11/10/2004, 05:58 PM I like the conclusion Dan. Truthful reporting is what journalism is about. Often the facts lead to one side over the other between to positions on an issue. Relativism like in the Swifboat smears does the nation a great disservice. Opinionated grievances are not facts, but feelings and shouldn't get equal billing as news. That's the take home message.

What are we going to do about it? Posted by Maurreen Skowran - The News & Observer 11/13/2004, 12:50 PM If we're unhappy with political coverage, what can we do about it? Here are a few ideas I've been think about. * Awards for best pre-election coverage -- meaning what helps the voters. * An organization or interactive Web site focused on journalism for voters. * Getting the public involved in critiquing coverage in a nonpartisan and constructive way, and responding to that. * Research examining possible links between coverage of politics (especially related to elections and campaigns) and its effects (such as possibly more informed voters, more civic satisfaction, better voter turnout, more audience satisfaction with the news organization, maybe even greater ciculation, etc.) Anyone else interested, or have any thoughts to build on?

opposition media Posted by Abby Diw - 11/14/2004, 07:38 PM We desperately need it-- Fox is clearly partisan, CNN and MSNBC are Fox-Lite [i.e. pathetic--[both the left and right are put off by them] There is NO 24-hr cable channel on the other side of Fox

What to do? Posted by Adam Terando - Researcher 11/16/2004, 02:08 PM " What are we going to do about it? Posted by Maurreen Skowran - The News & Observer 11/13/2004, 12:50 PM If we're unhappy with political coverage, what can we do about it? Here are a few ideas I've been think about. * Awards for best pre-election coverage -- meaning what helps the voters. * An organization or interactive Web site focused on journalism for voters. * Getting the public involved in critiquing coverage in a nonpartisan and constructive way, and responding to that. * Research examining possible links between coverage of politics (especially related to elections and campaigns) and its effects (such as possibly more informed voters, more civic satisfaction, better voter turnout, more audience satisfaction with the news organization, maybe even greater ciculation, etc.) Anyone else interested, or have any thoughts to build on?" I sincerely hope you're kidding. A website focusing on journalism for voters? Isn't all political reporting supposed to focus on voters? How about we start a committee on committees to hash out a 10 point plan on how to create a plan for coming up with ideas on HOW TO GET JOURNALISTS TO DO THEIR JOB.

Impartial Journalism - ? Posted by Christopher Cross - Lost In America, Org., is a new frontline discussion forum on issues of government corruption and societal indifference that is located at http://www.lostinamerica.blogs.com 11/25/2004, 09:39 AM Dan, you raise some interesting, yet, double edged sword questions here... On one hand journalism should idealy be impartial and should certainly be geared towards serving the best interest of society. On the other hand we must ask if this is even possible when media agencies "endorse" a politicial candidate and therein completely erode every legitimate claim they could make in being impratial. Thus, if we are going to start somewhere, it should be in applying public pressure on the media to stop endorcing political candidates at all levels of governemt. I do not agree with this "award" system...much like rewarding a child for good behavior who then refuses to be good unless he gets an award for doing what he should be doing anyway. Insofar as public input..great idea, but one should not hold great expectations for the public to be any more impartial than the media and certainly less civil in the discourse expressed in large groups or forums. I do however agree with the smaller and more controlled groups that we saw occurring this past election to a small degree. The smaller the group (around 10 people at the most ) and more diverse the backgrounds the more productive the conversations will be. Unfortunately, people continue to think that America is composed of large cities and neglect to remember that there are many small towns...small towns that are frequently without a voice in both politics and the media, but no less powerful in their political capital when looking at it in the broader picture. One of the areas that seriously needs to be studdied since there are none existing thus far that I am aware of is that of weblog's. This remains to be a grossly uncharted territory on all fronts really, but especially in way of political and watchdog weblog's. So if you are truly eager to do a study...start here as undoubtedly it will be of great interest to see what is discovered. But in doing a study, include the best methods for like minded/formatted weblogs to connect with the same. Because as it stands right now, much of it is a hit and miss trial and error method relying mostly upon unfulfilled hopes and wishful dreams. Christopher Lost In America, Org. http://www.lostinamerica.blogs.com ... lostinamericaorg@aol.com Submit a comment - Jump to top of list