Journalism and American Democracy

In analyzing coverage of the presidential election across Indiana media, I looked at articles from three papers: the Indianapolis Star, the Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne, and the Evansville Courier & Press. One trend that I immediately noticed across all three papers’ websites was that they seemed to pay more attention to the state and local election results and aftermath than those of the presidential race. None of the three websites had a story related to the presidential election placed very prominently on their “news” or “politics” page, and I had to do a bit of searching to find their coverage of the presidential election. Most of the featured political stories on these three websites discussed the results and significance of state and local races, and most of the stories on the presidential race were picked up from other newspapers or media sources with a more national base. This smaller amount of reporting and coverage on the presidential race is probably largely due to only having the access and resources needed to directly cover local races. It may also, however, reflect the Republican leaning of the state, and knowledge that many readers will not want to read lengthy pieces touting or analyzing President Obama’s victory. Because Indiana was won decisively by Governor Romney on Tuesday, there may not be great demand for extensive coverage on a national decision that did not reflect the state’s popular opinions. The coverage of state and local elections, on the other hand, are guaranteed to deliver favorable news and analysis to at least a considerable portion of readers.

It was also interesting considering the angles by which some of the stories discussed the presidential election. One story in the Indianapolis Star focused mostly on how Romney won Indiana decidedly and how Obama was unable to generate enthusiasm in the state as he did in 2008. The story quotes a professor from Indiana University in Bloomington as saying there was “a lot less excitement” for Obama in this election than the last. The article also mentions that Obama did not visit Indiana once this election cycle, as his campaign likely sensed that chances of victory were very low. A story on the website of the Journal Gazette, originally from Bloomberg News and titled “A nation divided?”, focused on how Obama gained the votes of a large majority of minority and women voters, while Romney gained a significant majority of votes from white and male voters. This article seems to portray a narrative where there is a widening ideological gap between different segments of the American population. This narrative, along with the perspective that shows Obama failed to generate much support in Indiana, draws attention to the fact that neither candidate was able to develop a wide, diverse base of support across the country, and presents the idea that despite Obama’s victory, the nation is not necessarily united behind him. It seems that there might be a subtle yet intentional negative backdrop given to coverage of the presidential election results in these Indiana papers.

Although the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press both cover news for the Twin Cities in Minnesota, the papers have different policies when it comes to newspaper endorsements in presidential elections. Particularly in a race that is as close as this one is purported to be, it is understandable that a newspaper would choose not to endorse either candidate, for fear of alienation of its readership.  In an article he wrote regarding the phenomenon of endorsements, David Brauer quotes the editor of the Pioneer Press, Mike Burbach, as stating, “We just wanted to do it this way, this year. At this moment, it’s more comfortable for me.” Although the paper still publishes editorials regarding the election, as well as interviews with the candidates, Burbach states, upon receiving little feedback from the paper’s readership: “I guess that tells me people are going to make up their own minds, whether you do endorsements or not, and they have ever-more sources of information.”

While the Pioneer Press has not endorsed a candidate in this presidential election nor the previous, the Star Tribune has followed a different pattern.  The paper, with nearly 100,000 more readers than the Pioneer Press, has endorsed Obama for the second election in a row.  The Editorial Board made the endorsement despite “disappointment over the lost opportunities of his first four years.”  The Board cites concerns about Romney’s tendency to adapt his image depending on the circumstance, as they write, “But who can be certain which Romney will appear next? How can any American be sure where he stands on gay rights, immigration, climate change, reproductive rights and investment in education?” While it may seem like a risky move for the Star Tribune to endorse a candidate for presidency when its rival newspaper has elected not to dole out an endorsement, this is hardly the case.  As the state with the longest voting streak in the nation, in this case, for Democratic presidential candidates, it is treated as a given among Minnesota citizens that it is and always will be a blue state. When a friend of mine turned eighteen years old shortly before the 2008 presidential election, her dad said to her, “As a conservative living in Minnesota, get used to just throwing your vote away.”  Surely this is an extreme view of inefficacy, however the voting record of Minnesota speaks for itself.  While it is interesting that one paper chose to give an endorsement while the other did not, an endorsement of Obama is hardly surprising. An endorsement of Romney in Minnesota? That would be an article worth reading.

The following are links to the Minnpost article regarding the Pioneer Press’s non-endorsement, as well as the endorsement of Obama by the Star Tribune:

http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2012/10/why-st-paul-pioneer-press-dropped-political-endorsements

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/176032451.html?refer=y

For extra information, this link displays general election endorsements by the top 100 newspapers based on daily circulation for both 2008 and 2012:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/2012_newspaper_endorsements.php

Looking at a meta-analysis of newspaper endorsements of the top hundred newspapers by circulation, a few things strike me. First, the two largest newspapers, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today, do not generally endorse candidates. There are a couple of others as well, perhaps most notably Deseret News, which one imagines would lean pro-Romney if for nothing other than its name. Secondly, both these newspapers have lost fairly significant ground to newspapers that do in the last four years, USA Today in particular. Thirdly, the influence of such newspapers has diminished. Their total subscriptions went from 27,138,751 subscriptions to 23,598,488, a loss of over three and a half million. Thirdly, it is notable that Romney already outnumbers McCain in the number of endorsements he’s received, and is only two hundred thousand behind McCain in terms of subscriptions of those newspapers. Since there are still a little under a third of newspapers who have not endorse either candidate, things look more optimistic for him than McCain, and indeed he is significantly closer to Obama in terms of both newspapers and subscribers than McCain was (though lagging behind Obama in aggregate).

Regardless, I looked at the two largest newspapers’ endorsements, for two reasons. First, if we presume subscription number has any effect on newspapers influence, and we must if we are to accept the premise that newspapers can influence the matter at all, these two papers combined represent over one percent of the electorate and a little under ten percent of top hundred newspaper subscriptions. Secondly newspapers desire success and thus might seek to emulate their styles if not their content. Thirdly they are more directly comparable simply for the fact both newspapers endorsed Barrack Obama both in this and the previous election, thus both being ‘loyalists’ of his. Indeed, the Times has not endorsed a Republican since Eisenhower.

I wonder, and in truth do not know, how endorsement decisions are made. But it seems to break all rules of professionalism present elsewhere. The articles are unabashedly normative, loyalist, and hostile in a way uncommon to professional press and more suited to party rags. Notably the LA Times calls it an ‘endorsement’ while the New York Times calls it an ‘editorial’, but it is not really the latter because this is a statement of the views of the newspaper, not just the writer. It is true that it is an opinion rather than news, but it cannot be followed by the usual disavowal that it is the writer’s and not the newspaper’s opinion which is a staple of that genre. Despite the increased culpability, there is little admission of imperfection in either, and nearly half of the LA Times piece is dedicated not to talking up Obama but attacking Romney. While this is expected of politicos, it certainly opens them to criticism and accusations of dirty partisanship I would think a paper would avoid.

I also find it remarkable how blind both endorsements seem. They seem entirely unaware, for example, that someone might look at certain things they condemn Romney for and see them as good things. If they were aware, I think, they would have put some arguments in support of such a position, and thus its absence speaks to it. To use a more controversial example, both the LA Times and New York Times speak of the overturning of Roe v Wade as a strike against Romney without explaining or qualifying it, ignoring that the last Gallup poll has’pro-choice’ Americans are at a record low and outnumbered by ‘pro-life’ Americans. This is not to open that debate, I feel I must stress, but merely to point out that they treat this as a persuasive argument rather than a point to be defended. If we take this as a true barometer of the opinions of the newspaper, that implies the newspaper is so liberal that it cannot understand conservatism as a phenomenon, which is unfortunate.

Also, to the Los Angeles Times, ‘modulating’ is not an acceptable synonym for mutable, varying, wishy washy, flip flopping, or any such word, if not in denotation then in connotation.

All in all, I’m skeptical of the effects this will actually have on the election, but they are interesting as a phenomena in of themselves. And perhaps more interestingly to me, it seems perhaps the most firm evidence for the liberal leanings of the press, which up till now I had seen little but speculation and the bitter raving of conservatives about.

Sources:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/2012_newspaper_endorsements.php

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-president-20121021,0,5490210.story

I do believe the debates matter for the process and outcome of the presidential election. Some of the post-debate coverage on cable news networks last night polled or interviewed previously undecided voters, and these reports often showed that voters were heavily influenced or had their minds made up by watching the debate. While some of this projection might be due to the media drawing responses out of voters or voters getting caught up in the immediate emotion brought on by the debate, I think the amount of discussion about the various issues and opinions shows that Americans do pay close attention to these debates and that not everyone has their mind unshakably made up going in. I am not sure how much statistical<code></code> voter swing will be linked to the debates, but I do think Americans factor them into their opinions. Much of the discussion from last night centered on who won the debate, but I believe there was significant worth in just having the candidates express their opinions and stances in each other’s presence. So much political campaigning is done through emotional statements and criticisms that do not allow the candidates to hear each other’s responses, and the debates allow voters to hear opinions, plans, and ideologies juxtaposed in a manner that provides some context for comparison. The candidates might not always respond directly to issues, and they often politicize statements, but at least there is some form of discourse going on. In this sense, debates can give voters a somewhat deeper understanding of pertinent issues and the differing opinions that surround those issues.

Many topics and nuanced issues were covered during Wednesday night’s presidential debate, and I had some trouble keeping up with the pace of the discourse and understanding all the details of the issues that candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney discussed. In reviewing the debate in my mind, I think some of the biggest takeaways may have come from things the candidates did not say or address, or issues that they let linger. Both Obama and Romney left me with lingering questions about their economic plans, and I wonder if journalists may be most helpful in investigating and reporting on these lingering issues.

For Barack Obama, one important issue that I think he left unaddressed was the notion that his health care plan, popularly known as “Obamacare,” will deliver a significant financial blow to small businesses and damage job growth. In the debate’s segment on health care, Romney was adamant that Obamacare would severely hurt job growth, and I do not remember Obama ever addressing this claim. I think that this may say that Obamacare’s effect on job growth and small businesses may be one of its most glaring problems, and Obama should respond in detail to this issue if he hopes for the public to gain greater faith in his health care plan.

As for Mitt Romney, I felt that he never showed enough specific evidence to show that he had a specific plan for reforms that he would enact to decrease the federal debt and bring positive change to other government operations. On multiple occasions, Obama criticized Romney for not having a specific plan in terms of cuts and changes he would implement in the federal budget and in federal regulations. Romney often responded by saying that he actually did have a plan, or by saying that he couldn’t offer a cut and dry plan right now because he would work on a bipartisan basis to craft specific details. While I think Romney made a strong point in identifying the need to work with both parties to craft specific plans, I think he also should have offered more specific details of cuts and changes he would propose. It’s difficult for voters to simply take him at his word that he will have a focused strategy and plan to make improvements once he is elected. However, Romney could have offered more specifics in past interviews or settings that I missed, and I will be interested to see if more of his specific ideas are revealed in future debates.

It is often difficult to tell who makes the most salient points during political debates, and I think paying attention to important details that the candidates do not address can reveal the critical areas in which candidates need to shore up ideas or clarify their stance or strategy to the public. Hopefully some of the problematic narratives in regards to certain issues that were played out in this first debate will be addressed in future debates and be discussed further by the news media.

I found all of Kathleen Parker’s columns to be engaging and enlightening, and her ability to address a wide variety of issues in a style that is both lively and serious is impressive and encouraging. We have discussed extensively how it is impossible for journalists to be completely objective or unbiased, and Parker embraces this notion with her columns, but she at the same time offers smart and balanced analysis that is driven by a desire to contribute to public discussion and welfare rather than a stubborn ideology. Parker is very skilled at drawing lessons of morality and responsibility out of the most salient current events, and also from her own important personal experiences.

In her coverage of the current presidential election, Parker sharply critiques elements of both candidates and parties, and points out serious issues that confront the American public at large. She evaluates Mitt Romney as being too engrossed with the mechanics of winning an election rather than being dialed in to the needs of American citizens, and identifies MSNBC’s “unapologetically pro-democratic, pro-Obama” coverage as an example of problematic television news media that fails to deliver impartial information and coverage to citizens that need it. Also, Parker’s piece on the American public’s infatuation with personality and “likability” in evaluating the presidential candidates is a powerful reminder that public policy issues, and not self-promotion, are what should drive political debates and elections.

I was perhaps most struck by Parker’s column on the issues surrounding President Obama’s stance on abortion and his visit to Notre Dame as a commencement speaker and honorary degree recipient. In discussing an issue that is both controversial and highly significant to different groups and individuals in different ways, Parker illuminates the importance of appreciating different interpretations and points of view, referencing novelist and physician Walker Percy’s statement that “one kind of truth” should never “[prevail] at the expense of another.” In a world where opinions can be extremely divisive, Parker reminds us that keeping an open mind is often the most important step in moving toward solutions and agreements. This message of tolerance and open-mindedness may signify what especially makes Parker’s columns strong, helpful, and engaging.