|
I am sure the father on “Family Guy” would say “C’mon” when confronted
with all the politics covered in newspapers and magazines (old media)
and online (new media) that we now see, that in some ways is
illustrious, at least for me, for its emptiness. Political writers and
editors look on coverage of this, the longest campaign for president
in history, as the blood they need to drink to stay alive despite the
public’s declining interest in their work.
The coverage is mostly dull. It is not very critical. It plays into
the hands of the political wonks who revel in using reporters to their
advantage. I confess that I read almost nothing about politics. I do
not watch the debates, a dubious term for mostly men in dark suits and
ties who stand in front of cameras spewing platitudes. Reporters
over-analyze every tic and tell delivered by a candidate, especially
during those debates.
The machinations of the campaign are boring. I think of the media’s
wasted time and effort in the coverage, as if all the current exposure
will reveal that one major flaw in a candidate that will spell his or
her end. Worse, nothing deters the second rank of candidates in each
party – name them quickly, if you can -- from quitting. Do they really
think they have a chance? I do not. Nor, probably, does the rest of
America. Yet these second level candidates slog along slow as mud,
trying to raise money, showing up for the debates, holding news
conferences, and allowing ego to dominate how they think and act
instead of using good sense and leaving the political stage for other
climes. But that is too much to expect. The public rarely counts for
much in the face of ambitious politicians.
###
Now there is this from the Project for Excellence in Journalism about
coverage of the war in Iraq. The number of stories from Iraq in April,
May and June fell from 22% to roughly 15% of all coverage. That is a
sad number to contemplate with American troops dying every day. It
seems that most of that coverage was about the debate in Washington
over the war, and far less about combat, the men fighting in Iraq.
Coverage of a war demands war coverage. The major newspapers and their
online sites do a commendable job in covering the war. It is
television that fails its viewers. I know how difficult it is to have
reporters on constant and frequent patrol with troops. The dangers are
palpable and well documented. But if we do not show stories of the
coalition troops in action, it is impossible to understand the war the
men and women are fighting. To understand whether the surge is
working, without seeing the surge in action every day, there is no way
for anyone to make an informed judgment about its effectiveness. We
must be skeptical about the words that flow from the mouths of our
generals and our diplomats. After all, they work for the government
and do not think independently, at least not out loud. It is far
easier for the networks to cover Iraq as a political story, out of
Washington and Baghdad. In Washington, there is less danger of anyone
being hurt physically when all the reporter does is stand and talk. It
gives reporters something to do with their time. We used to call
analysis stories thumb suckers. There is far too much of them today
when the war and the men and women fighting it demand fuller, better
and more frequent coverage. But then I wonder, if there were more
stories from the battlefront, where would the networks put them, what
with all the features they play disguised as hard news, news you can
use, news that they – the networks, broadcast and cable – want you to
know about so you can have a successful life.
###
In the not too distant past in the spirit of tickling my adversaries,
I advocated a one-day moratorium for all blogs. That did not go over
very well and the attacks against me were furious and mean-spirited. I
know that with almost sixty million blogs now in space, a moratorium
would never work.
Recently I suggested that all the news organizations treat their
Washington bureaus as if they were in a foreign country. I thought by
doing that, we, the people might be better served because the obvious
symbiosis that rules journalism in Washington might be tougher and
thus, more honest. That, notion, also did not fly.
My latest suggestion for the media is that no one, and I mean no one,
TV, old media, new media, whatever media you can think of, should
cover politics for 24 hours, designed to stop all at the same time no
matter what the news cycle. I am willing to bet the house that people
will not miss what they did not see or hear. The press should do
nothing even as the candidates continue to fill the surrounding
political air with their often-suspect personal visions. No sound
bites. No made for media photo ops. Nothing political for twenty-four
hours. The only coverage I would allow would be that of a disaster or
a tragedy beyond the control of anyone in public relations. Think of
the quiet. I know I do and look forward to the resulting silence. I
can’t wait. Can you?
........................................................................................................................
At NBC News for 35 years, Ron Steinman was bureau chief
in Saigon, Hong Kong and London, was a senior producer on Today and wrote
and produced for Sunday Today. At ABC News Productions, he produced
and wrote documentaries for A&E, TLC, Discovery, Lifetime and the
History Channel. He has a Peabody, a National Headliner award, a
National Press Club award, a International Documentary Festival Gold
Camera Award, two American Women in Radio & Television awards and
has been nominated for five Emmy's. He is a partner in
Douglas/Steinman Productions, whose latest documentary, "Luboml: My
Heart Remembers," aired on PBS' WLIW/21 and the History Channel in
Israel, April 29, 2003. He is the author of, "The Soldiers 'Story",
"Women in Vietnam," and most recently, "Inside Television's First
War: A Saigon Journal," University of Missouri Press, 2002. |
Anti-Matter:
Election Coverage and War Coverage