No Substance for Me!

More whining about this same issue of the media and an inability to think about the issues. Adam Nagourney is talking about debates. He's covered a lot of presidential debates. "And without exception, I have covered them the same way: Watching the proceedings on a television screen, and never mind that the candidates may be standing on a stage 30 feet away." That's because he sees his job as guessing how the exchange looked to voters at home ("the best way to report on a televised presidential debate is to write about what is shown on television . . .because that is how voters see it") rather than to use his skills as a journalist to provide readers with additional context and information.

The most recent Democratic debate, though, "was written up for The Times, off television sets, byPatrick Healy in New York and Jeff Zeleny in Charleston" giving Nagourney an opportunity to do something other than play the role of amateur television critic. What did he do? Analysis of the issues? Research into the meaning of the Edwards-Obama exchange on health care mandates? Catch up on his favorite TV shows? Take a nap? Read a book? No! He, watched the debate live and in person. And what did he glean from this experience? A whole different set of trivial observations that even he refers to as "fluff." You'll be glad to learn, for example, that Hillary Clinton "DID stand out in that sea of dark suits wearing that (sorry) eye-catching coral jacket." Fascinating.

Comments

Of course, the problem is not necessarily that Adam Nagourney exists ... this sort of thing would be fine if confined to the back or even front pages the The Hiil or some late hour on CNN. The problem is that he is routinely given the second most valuable bit of newspaper real estate to espouse his TV criticism and fluff, and it drives newspaper and network news coverage to a much greater degree than it ought to.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | July 30, 2007 2:00 PM

Do Times editors imagine that this sort of thing helps their circulation? Is there any chance in hell that they're right? Because I suppose that just because I never bother to read articles like this and don't know one single person who does, it doesn't mean no one does.

Posted by Antid Oto | July 30, 2007 2:02 PM

Antid: My guess is that newspaper editors have a narrow view of what free market "competition" means, especially when it comes to hard news. They seem to think that it means if news outlet X covers issue Y, then they need to cover it as well; otherwise their readers will start going to news outlet X for their information. Halperin & Harris detail this worldview in "The Way To Win", which is a disgusting look into the DC press corps but a good way to gain insight into how it works.

But this is a silly view of "competition". Why be like everyone else? Why not try to differentiate yourself in the marketplace?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | July 30, 2007 2:41 PM

So Nagourney's job is to tell voters what they saw on TV, rather than, say, sharing information that they probably don't already have.

Just a guess, but I'm thinking that for what he does, he's wildly overpaid.

Posted by Hogan | July 30, 2007 3:10 PM

rather than to use his skills as a journalist to provide readers with additional context and information

I'm sympathetic to the desire for more substantive coverage rather than horse race BS, but aside from aggressive fact checking I'm not sure what Nagourney or other journalists can add.

Posted by Led | July 30, 2007 4:07 PM

Well since they certainly feel free to offer their opinion on who came off better in the debates, maybe they should start offering their opinion on who sounded better based on the content of their arguments.

Posted by mpowell | July 30, 2007 5:39 PM

So AdNags admits to doing what I've long claimed: He's not describing what HE thinks about the candidates, he's describing what he thinks OTHER people will think. "The voters," an entity entirely of his own imagination and informed by no empirical or objective fact whatsoever.

This is, by the way, what 99% of the Heathers do. They carry a model called "The voters" in their heads. "The voters" are interested in stuff like clothes and hair cuts and how wide people's shoulders are. And this is, like, super convenient, because it means you don't actually have to know anything to write about politics. All that hard economics and things that involve math and thinking and make a barbie-doll's brain hurt. Instead, you can report on the political race without actually knowing anything about anything except clothes and hair cuts 'n' stuff. You know, the dumb stuff "voters" think about.

It's perfect. It allows you to be as dumb as you think the people you're writing for are, while simultaneously allowing you to think you're smarter than them--you're just writing all this dumb crap because it's what you think they think about. Not cuz YOU actually think this way. Only problem is, if you think this way and write this way, you really are as dumb as those people. Whereas they're actually a lot smarter, on the whole, than you give them credit for. Smarter than you, in fact, over the long run.

Posted by DrBB | July 30, 2007 10:48 PM

Well since they certainly feel free to offer their opinion on who came off better in the debates, maybe they should start offering their opinion on who sounded better based on the content of their arguments.

American journalists could never float down from their "objectivity" clouds to do something like that. They have the heavy work to do here.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 30, 2007 11:19 PM

That's because he sees his job as guessing how the exchange looked to voters at home....

That's half true. It's accurate to say that Nagourney and his ilk concentrate on voter's impressions rather than anything substantive. That is, he'll tell you whether X's statement on Iraq "resonates with the voters" without saying anything about whether X's position on Iraq is a workable one, or even an intelligible one.

However, TV talking heads, newspaper columnists, and many political reporters are effectively opinion contractors trying to swing public opinion by telling the American people what the American people think. They are inventing opinions for the public and trying to make them real.

An example of the way this works: according to Media Matters, Stephanopolous recently claimed that Congress is even less popular than Bush. This was not even nominally true, and was even more misleading because a substantial part of Congress's unpopularity comes from its failure to confront Bush strongly enough.

So an individual, not-very-committed voter watching TV at home will think "Hm, I'd sort of thought Bush was worse, but The American People apparently don't agree with me." He might waver in his opinion, or he might just get discouraged or cynical.

Stephanopolous's "The American People" was a nonexistent fiction, but when it was reported on TV, the fictional American People had a real effect on the real American People.

This is even more obvious in the talk shows. O'Reilly and Limbaugh are 27%-ers, but their schtick is the "Regular Guy". If the 73% watch TV, they end up feeling that they're in the minority.

Posted by John Emerson | July 31, 2007 8:46 AM

So this is like when the weather people on the local TV channel get their guy to their parking lot when it starts snowing. YOU'RE JUST TELLING ME THE SAME STUFF I CAN SEE ON MY OWN LOOKING OUT THE F***ING WINDOW.

Definitely I want Adam Nagourney's job when I grow up. Zero qualifications needed, can earn millions from just coming up with some insipid high school chitchat a few times a week. What's not to love?

Posted by El Cruzado | July 31, 2007 9:52 AM