Media Coverage and Elections

***

1

In a democracy, what is the responsibility of the public media in relation to elections?

During the run-up to the mid-term elections earlier this month, it would seem that the media all thought their responsibility was to tell us who was going to win. Partisan and biased media (the majority of our national media, unfortunately) emphasized the disadvantages of the other side and, occasionally, the advantages of their side. They quoted, edited and broadcast, and summarized – unfairly – what the candidates said.

Because they were biased, the media routinely claimed that what their candidates said was true, and what the other candidates said was untrue … was, in fact, often laughable. They also scoffed at the criticisms of their own candidates from the other side and from the other side’s biased media. Some or many of the most powerful partisan public affairs media are large and powerful corporations, a fact that was not acknowledged even when corporate power was identified as an issue in the election by one or more candidates.

On the other hand, explicitly or implicitly the apparently less partisan and less biased media nonetheless called attention to the potentially baseless claims of the partisans and usually attempted to inform the public accurately and truthfully, based on facts (such as polls and more or less fair summaries of candidates’ statements) about who was leading and who was falling behind, and by how much, and even tried to analyze why that was so.

The candidates were identified, as well as the election dates and the particular offices for which they were running (senator from Arizona, governor of Louisiana, etc.). That’s the Who and What of the story, the Where and the When, and even the Why. Good journalism, right from the textbook, right?

Well, no. That might have been true if the real story, the one that in a democracy matters, had been an answer to the question, Who is going to win the election?

But the fact of the matter is that the question the media has the responsibility to try to answer - truthfully, factually, and honestly - about any democratic election is not Who will win? The key question is What is at stake for the public?

2

To inform the public about what is at stake for them in an election, the media must strive to report accurately and without distortion what the candidates claim is at stake (as they would probably claim they did in this last election campaign). AND, critically, they must go on to state as completely and as impartially as possible – even when their corporate owners’ and sponsors’ interests are in play – how factual these candidates’ claims really are. And they must inform the public of the short-term and – especially – the long-term consequences that would result from implementing each candidate’s position on the facts and on relevant policies.

It may be worth the media’s mentioning secondarily who appears to be leading in each race, but that is FAR from the most significant story.

3

Why is it so important in a democracy for the media to inform the public not so much about who will win the election and the likely political consequences of that result, but primarily about what is at stake in the election?

Citizens who do not have a comprehensive understanding, based on facts rather than competing assertions, cannot vote responsibly. They will not be able to gauge what is at stake for themselves individually, short-term and long-term, or what is at stake for the country as a whole. They will be vulnerable to manipulation by others and to their own inherent prejudices.

Thus, the media’s concentration on “Who will win” rather than on “What’s at stake for the public” subverts the value of democracy itself.

4

Why do so-called news media today emphasize Who’s leading and trailing in elections rather than in what matters most, What is at stake for voters?

There are quite a few interrelated reasons, none of them compelling:

a.
The current media in America see their primary responsibility as serving their corporate owners, rather than serving the public.

Until recently, public media – like other businesses - used to be confident that serving the public was the surest way, in the long run, to serve corporate interests. If you in truth had a better product for sale or provided a better service, consumers would choose you over your competitors, thus making money for your owners (or stockholders). This was well known to be the surest way for your business to succeed, and keep on succeeding long-term.

Today, it seems, public media – like all businesses – are focused on making the biggest profits possible, right now, even if they do not in truth offer the best products or services possible but are only able to make people buy their goods and services with appeals to their vanity, their lust or greed, and their desire for instant gratification, rather than their long-term best interests in fact.

b.
It requires less time, effort, experience, and knowledge - not to mention courage – for public media to merely pass along claims of others about what’s at stake for our futures, rather than putting their own reputations on the line in an effort to inform us themselves about the significant facts and long-term consequences.

For a newspaper, blog, magazine, or broadcast to meet its obligations to the public in dealing with elections, reporting what the relevant facts are, it must stand behind what it reports. If such media discover that something they have passed along – either from their own staff or from others – is inaccurate, they have a responsibility to make a public correction. This takes both integrity and courage.

Trying to be a source not of competing viewpoints but of accurate information without which voters cannot make responsible decisions is a significant commitment, and a public media outlet must invest not only in skilled writers and reporters but also in researchers and investigators, rather than in merely popular public performers.

A big corporation – even a public media corporation – whose primary goal is to make its owners a fast profit is not likely to make that necessary investment.

c.
Contemporary American media is afraid of alienating those who are biased and seek only reinforcement of their already-fixed worldview.

Thus, the public media ignore their journalistic responsibility to challenge previously held convictions in order to correct misapprehensions and dispel false claims because, seeking immediate reward, they want to please the largest audience possible, every day.

d.
The main efforts of the public media today are designed to titillate, enflame, and/or to entertain their audience, rather than to inform the public.

For an entertainment program, such designs are of course appropriate and necessary. Corporate media managers invest heavily in achieving their goal of providing much sought-after emotional stimulation. It matters little if their results in their audiences are temporary and superficial rather than deep and long-lasting.

But for a news program, whose purpose is supposed to inform (no matter what emotions the facts reported may provoke), such designs are far less important.

e.
In order to make it easier to achieve their goal of providing entertainment, today's media in America has chosen to treat all events – even those with the potential to make history – as though they were athletic contests.

Sports programming stimulates the emotions desired: hope for victory, fear of defeat, suspense and surprise, camaderie, and general excitement. Sports as an industry is highly profitable for this reason.

If a news program’s goal in reporting about elections is primarily to provoke vivid emotions, then we should not be surprised to see that news programming today seems more and more like a sports report. One feature of a sporting event, however, is that the outcome of a sports contest does not matter for the general public in any meaningful sense. It is a game after all.

No matter what else it is, a public election is not merely a game, although it seems to be possible to make it seem that way.

and

f.
Informing the public not only about competing opinions of others but also about facts of long-term importance (as determined by the media outlet itself) is often seen today as contrary to large corporations’ best interests, including the interests of the big corporations that own most of the largest media outlets.

For example, if a candidate or many candidates’ party is determined – schooled by the “too big to fail” predicament – to limit the size of any one corporation (as Theodore Roosevelt once wanted), it would not be in a media corporation’s own self-interest to make those candidates or that party look attractive or to report on the basis there may be in actual fact supporting these would-be reformers’ position.

Or if a candidate wanted to make it clear by formal legal action that corporations are not individual people and therefore rights guaranteed to individuals – such as free speech – are not guaranteed to them (corporations), it would be in the best interests of a large media corporation to make that candidate less attractive than she or he might seem based on the relevant facts.

5

For all these reasons, it is difficult for large media outlets to focus their reports on what’s at stake in an election really, truly, and accurately, taking upon themselves responsibility for the facts they report.

***