Charlotte Grimes offers some insight into the process of political coverage by journalists in my own regional paper. It seems to be making the blogosphere rounds too. One of my State Chair colleagues in Washington (Scott Lindsley) responds in kind;
The fact that you are addressing the issue of third party media coverage is encouraging.
However, believing that there are no partisan leanings in media coverage of political figures ignores the reality of the past few election cycles. Evidenced by the time given to the most trivial issues of the Republicans and Democrats in relation to the power points of the third party candidates. The media are quite often ignoring serious issues and candidates that are working very hard on a 'real' campaign (to address the 'is it a real race' question raised in your article).
Your faith in journalism may hold some weight when addressing local issues, but on a national level and on many statewide campaigns there has been scarce coverage of legitimate candidates with serious campaigns. My home state of Washington is a prime example of this. The 2006 Libertarian candidate Bruce Guthrie's statewide campaign had an office, a fleet of volunteers, radio, bus, and television ads and still had to mortgage his home and raise over a million dollars in order for the TV station to have him in the debates. Still the media only included him as an 'also ran'. It wasn't the Secretary of State deciding who gets into the debates, it's the media outlets.
Of course there should be reasonable barriers for entry into the news and the debates. But should they be so high that one has to mortgage your home to be heard just because you chose to be of a less popular party?
Here's my crack at it (after the jump).
When I tried to run for Congress in NY's 20th Congressional District in 2006 I had a decent amount of coverage lined up after Labor Day if I had made the ballot. At least two television stations agreed to an interview and a handful of print publications also agreed to interviews. I had raised some money, made a commercial and had some following in the district (at least 2.4 percent in a June Zogby poll). I had no complaint per se to the coverage I did in fact receive. The Times Union even covered my fall at the hands of the former Congressman.
The coverage of the two other candidates bordered on trivial and venal bi-partisan bickering and shuffling. In a way I preferred not to be covered like them. We heard about speeding tickets, frat parties, income tax returns, residency issues, personal habits like smoking and other offensive gaffes and foibles that did little to inform the public about ideas or issues. World conflict, pertinent economic issues, national debt and the role of government itself was only being discussed sparingingly by them. It was my whole purpose in the campaign as well as the Drug War, the morality of Universal healthcare and the viability of Social Security. The last Siena poll didn't even include me despite being listed on the previous Zogby poll. In fact the pollster didn't even know I was in the race until I was out. My fault perhaps, but you would think a pollster would look at a previous poll and take some cue. Oh well.
The problem with Ms. Grimes approach is that coverage will automatically favor the players in our disproportionate two party system that institutionalizes advantage in the form of restrictive ballot access laws. Likewise one must question the popular players whose advantage also accrues financial favor and reward from entrenched interests who also directly provide income and revenue to said publications and media outlets. It's a self perpetuating cycle that the average voter is rarely aware of.
Ms. Grimes states;
Is that partisan or ideological bias? No. Is it a journalistic conspiracy to keep newcomers out of office? No. To support powerful incumbents? No.
Detailed argumentation ? Nope. Simply assertions. It also suggests or sets up the idea that we might be conspiracy whack jobs or discontented ideologues being crushed by the 'man'. What is the basis for us accepting such assertions ? To wit;
The kind and amount of coverage reflects several factors: Journalists' judgments on which races or candidates are most newsworthy. Conventional wisdom on when coverage is most useful or interesting to the public. And the limited resources of reporters, space and time.
In deciding comparative newsworthiness, journalists calculate from a rough formula:
Is the race competitive? How strong is the incumbent? Any scandals brewing? Constituents happy or unhappy? Last victory margin? For the challenger, any fundraising success? How many petitions? Well-known outside of politics too? Drawing any kind of crowd at events? Any other signs of voter interest or party support?
Competitive ? How can any third party candidate claim competitiveness in races that start out with such undue advantage and incumbent security ? Certainly only a member of the traditional opposite party can make any such claim from the get go. Even then, a terribly gerrymandered district (like the 21st Congressional District in the Capital District) may only follow suit in a primary race of the dominant party, if there is one.
Incumbent Advantage ? Why is the strength of the incumbent a deciding factor in coverage ? Presumably if one is so strong as to not have any competition, that competition is simply not worthy ? This extends past mere third party coverage at this point. It is in fact a bias that may not be related to ideology, but perhaps overwhelming power and security is related.
Scandal ? Would a scandal get a third party candidate more coverage ? If so, what are the best practices in this regard ? Adultery ? Corruption seems improbable if they don't hold the seat they are vying for, so that seems off the table for challengers, unless they hold another public office that is subject to question or scandal.
Happy Voters ? How can there not be unhappy constituents in any given district ? Partisan play and discouragement have overwhelmed the average voter. Journalists take calls from them all the time. Unless they are organized in some traditional format or venue, they rarely get any coverage or encouragement from the media anyway. We're at war, the national debt is insurmountable in our lifetimes and markets are volatile and uncertain. You could find an unhappy constituent on any given day.
Fund raising success. Unless you're a member of the opposite major party or independently wealthy people don't give money to losers. But those same 'losers' will also bring to light many and more issues than any other mainstream candidate will. Americans naturally gravitate to and support 'winners'. Unless you have a real chance (and modern political science can almost assure any third party candidate doesn't) money is not forthcoming. This criteria is an inherent underlying bias that has far too much influence. Average voters may actually be interested in a candidate not obsessed by it.
Well known outside of politics. This is the bias towards celebrity, not some decent notion of community involvement or activism. Of course a Ralph Nader or Jesse Ventura fit that bill. But does the average local community leader make the grade ? Again the potential for bias with this criteria is also high.
Drawing any kind of crowd at events. Who besides the partisan hacks and bosses can mobilize anybody but cronies and beneficiaries to a political rally or event any more ? Once again the organized participants with a stake in the system can command such performance, but the average person won't drag out to see them. Why would they do so for a wannabe loser ? Noble public discourse in the polis ? Puh-lease.
Any other signs of voter interest or party support ? Might as well say Catch-22 at this point. What percentage at the polls constitutes interest ? Five, ten ? The average voter has to take a pretty big leap to go outside the Red & Blue on any given campaign or effort. Party support ? Do the ardent activists who drag out to third party meetings and events count as a party ? What if their not 'official'. The Greens and Libertarians are conceivably the largest parties outside the two biggies. In New York they cannot get ballot access because everyone (including the parasite parties who don't run their own candidates for Governor) puts their hopes and dreams into the lesser of two evils. Witness the rise and fall of Eliot Spitzer. The Working Families And Independence Parties have ballot access because they were willing to compromise ideals for influence.
I couldn't agree more when Mr. Lindsley concludes;
Though third party candidates have to make a better effort at being heard, including being professional, being serious, and actually putting out press releases that encourage media coverage, the media has chosen more often than not, to ignore and marginalize even the hardest working and most deserving of third party candidates. Apparently due to the unacceptable letter next to their name.
Regardless of your faith in the political system in America it also has been used to stifle or audit opponents using the FBI or the IRS. It has also been used to fire the staff of one office to replace them with yesmen, the media also has its share of strange bedfellows.
Why is the political arena the only one where the underdog story goes unsung?
Or to put it another way, this is the one arena where the squeaky wheel gets no grease.
Leave a comment