Talk to Wooster
Fall 2004
Missing the Story
Despite their intense focus, the media covering the presidential campaign in Ohio filed disappointing reports, high on spin, low on substance.
Email
Story
Our editor initially was skeptical that we’d find enough to write about. "I
was dead wrong," he said recently. "There’s so much bad campaign
coverage that it’s like waiting for a New York City bus. If you miss
one, don’t worry – another will come along in three minutes."
Campaign 2004 quickly took on all of the worst aspects of the 2000 campaign. Early on, it became mired in the Vietnam era, thanks to questions about Bush’s National Guard service and the flap over John Kerry’s war medals. (As humor columnist Dave Barry pleaded last August: "Call me a dreamer, but I’m hoping that at some point before we go to the polls we can get this campaign …to say, the late 1970s. For example, as a voter, I want to know whether Kerry or Bush was in any way involved in disco….")
Substantive discussion of the issues often was drowned out by name-calling. More often than not, the media got sucked into the verbal maelstrom. On occasion – the anti-Kerry campaign by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth being an excellent example – the traditional media was caught flat-footed as stories they ignored took on lives of their own, thanks to the growing importance of Web logs, talk radio, and cable news. Bloggers and talk shows fanned the Swift Boat controversy until, belatedly, The New York Times and the Washington Post felt compelled to address the allegations, publishing stories that used Kerry’s military records to debunk the veterans’ claims. By then, however, it was too late. Kerry spent much of September struggling to regain the leads he held before the attacks began. "There have been dozens of press failures during this presidential campaign," CampaignDesk wrote in late August. "But this one…has to rank as a low point."
CampaignDesk also railed long and hard about the media’s love affair with "he said/she said" journalism, in which reporters act as stenographers, not filters of the truth. Example: George Bush described John Kerry’s health-care plan as a federal takeover. The Kerry camp denied it. Reporters included the charge and the response in their story. He said/she said. What’s the poor reader left to do? Run to the candidates’ Web sites, pore over their policy platforms, and try to figure out the answer himself? What the campaign needs more of, we often wrote, is "he said/she said/we said" journalism – in which the reporter not only lays out both positions, but also does some homework and offers the facts when they are available. Belatedly in the campaign (but hopefully in time to help voters sort through the complex issues), some members of the media began offering these kinds of details that their readers and listeners deserved. It would be nice to think that CampaignDesk’s harping played a role.
