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.

On the excitement scale, reading Idaho’s presidential election news coverage ranks somewhere between watching a Mitt Romney speech and watching paint dry. Newspaper and television coverage was seriously underwhelming and uninteresting. The predictable outcome of the state’s Electoral College allocation led media outlets to cover more contentious local issues. In fact, news articles regarding the POTUS election were quite difficult to find on the Coeur d’Alene Press website. Of the “Top Stories” listed on the Press’s homepage, the generic AP story covering the presidential race came up fourth. Instead, the Press decided that the most important story of the day were the voting technology glitches and the announcement of local races rather than the presidential race.

Eight driving hours and a different time zone away, Boise’s Idaho Statesmen portrays a similar ambivalence to the presidential results. Of the three print editions published by the Statesmen, only two had the election as its main headline, the third focused on the state education reform laws. Interestingly all three editions featured a secondary cover story touting “In Idaho, presidential result means more Obamacare, likely less federal spending.” Thus, when there was some sort of reaction to the presidential election, it was typically negative. The only story within the Idaho press that covered the results in a more positive light was a brief article about included the headline the Democratic gathering at a downtown Boise hotel from the Spokesman Review that included the headline “Idaho Dems celebrate, pool beckons.”

Idaho’s television news was equally unamused with the Obama reelection decision. Although there was limited television coverage originating from Idaho (as Northern Idaho gets the majority of its television from Spokane-based stations), it was staunchly pro-Romney. On Boise’s KTVB, hosts described Romney as “almost a native son” and utilized Idaho’s $600 million in Romney campaign contributions as evidence of the state’s love for him.

Idaho’s news coverage of the 2012 presidential election left much to be desired. Most of the election focus was on local issues including education reform and state government elections. In browsing Idaho news sources, it would seem almost as if there was not a presidential election day whatsoever. I guess the predictability of the results doesn’t warrant much coverage. Nonetheless, had the national election results gone the other way, it would be hard to imagine Idaho not giving more attention to the race. Regardless, I believe that it is important for local media outlets to focus more on local issues because there was plenty of national election coverage elsewhere.

SIDE NOTE: Idaho was most recently relevant in Presidential politics in August when Clint Eastwood officially endorsed Mitt Romney in Sun Valley. You can thank us for the chairs later…

I compared the presidential endorsements published by the Detroit Free Press and the Tennessean. While the two papers supported different candidates, both endorsements offered passionate commentary on the presidential race and pertinent issues at stake. The two endorsements were also interesting in that one seemed to focus more on the past accomplishments of the candidates while the other seemed to focus on the candidates’ flaws and shortcomings.

The Tennessean, which ultimately endorses Mitt Romney, does not seem to think too highly of either candidate. The article describes this presidential election as a “cautionary lesson for the future.” Its commentary criticizes both Barack Obama and Romney for faults relating to health care and foreign policy, and especially attacks Obama for contributing to the partisan gridlock that has rendered American politics ineffective and failing to establish any sort of bipartisan cooperation. The Tennessean views the economy as by far the most important issue in the election, and it endorses Romney due to his experience working with businesses and job creation. However, the article is fairly critical of Romney throughout its commentary, and it seems to endorse Romney largely through a total lack of faith in Obama.

The Detroit Free Press, endorsing Obama, seems significantly more confident and optimistic regarding its choice and America’s future. The article describes Obama’s first term as being quite positive and productive, citing as evidence the elimination of Osama bin Laden, the winding down of the war in Iraq, the increase of jobs in the auto industry, and the expanded coverage of health care. It also criticizes Romney for his tendency to flip-flop on issues and his ambiguity on methods for decreasing the deficit, and these criticisms were levied by the endorsement in the Tennessean as well. Overall, the Detroit Free Press is pretty enthusiastic in its support of President Obama.

These two papers offer significantly different outlooks on the upcoming presidential election, as well as on the current state of American politics in general. The Detroit Free Press is confident in its claim that the nation is heading in the right direction under President Obama, and views the past four years as successful progress. The Tennessean, on the other hand, is severely discouraged by the political gridlock of the past four years, and seems to support Romney largely because it simply does not believe the leadership of Obama will encourage bipartisanship or stimulate job growth. With Tennessee being a state that almost always votes Republican in the presidential election, and Michigan’s recent history of voting Democrat, it seems that biases related to readership and local influence may be at least somewhat visible here. In any case, it is interesting to see such divergent takes on the presidential election from mainstream papers in major U.S. cities.

Detroit Free Press Endorsement: http://www.freep.com/article/20121028/OPINION01/121026117

Tennessean Endorsement: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20121018/OPINION01/310180040/-1/PROJECTS18?nclick_check=1

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.