Media Bias

Via Brendan Nyhan, former Bush communications director Dan Bartlett gives his views on the political press:

TM: Do you think the press corps is responsible for putting that word out—that the president was lying [about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq]?

BARTLETT: I don’t think they’re purposely doing it. Look, I get asked the question all the time: How do you deal with them when they’re all liberal? I’ve found that most of them are not ideologically driven. Do I think that a lot of them don’t agree with the president? No doubt about it. But impact, above all else, is what matters. All they’re worried about is, can I have the front-page byline? Can I lead the evening newscast? And unfortunately, that requires them to not do in-depth studies about President Bush’s health care plan or No Child Left Behind. It’s who’s up, who’s down: Cheney hates Condi, Condi hates Cheney.

This seems like a shockingly reasonable assessment of the situation. One might add that a huge amount of the problem is lock-in. If the incentives facing the people who do this kind of coverage point in the direction of pointless, dumb stories then people who are strongly averse to doing that kind of work tend to get out of the business. Those who succeed are the ones who not only understand the incentive structure but who embrace it, thus further re-inscribing it.

Comments

Shocking because the way Bartlett answered the question left tacitly understood the fact that Bush was lying about WMDs. Way to go, Bartlett.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 6, 2007 9:08 AM

Your last paragraph also applies to management by screaming in the military.

Posted by stoneyforest | December 6, 2007 9:14 AM

I honestly doubt anyone in the Bush administration would welcome a serious, "in-depth study" of any of Bush's policies.

I also like the idea that the press corps is "all liberal". Hacktacular!

Posted by raff | December 6, 2007 9:15 AM

Very insightful, Matt. Not to say honest/objective. Lots of otherwise intelligent people deeply believe "Bush lies sent us to the worst blood for oil illegal hegemonic war ever". Wonder where they get ideas like that?

Posted by Robert Powell | December 6, 2007 11:26 AM

Very insightful, Matt. Not to say honest/objective. Lots of otherwise intelligent people deeply believe "Bush lies sent us to the worst blood for oil illegal hegemonic war ever". Wonder where they get ideas like that?

Considering the media largely signed off on the war initially, one assumes they got such ideas (minus your hyperbole) from observing events as they unfolded.

Posted by Bill | December 6, 2007 11:49 AM

And unfortunately, that requires them to not do in-depth studies about President Bush’s health care plan

I think "screw the poor" pretty covers that plan.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | December 6, 2007 11:14 PM

As a practicing member of the MSM, I think Bartlett's assessment is spot-on. Because politicians see everything in partisan terms, they assume that everyone does, but that's not the case. Journalists want to land the big story; they couldn't care less whether that story is good for Democrats or Republicans.

The other overriding motivation, which Bartlett didn't point out, is "narrative." Once a convention wisdom has been established, journalists tend to build stories around it. If it's decided that Bill Clinton is slippery or Hillary is mean or Obama is naive or Al Gore is a serial liar, then anything that supports that narrative becomes a story and anything that doesn't becomes ignored. And that kind of pack mentality is just amplified during campaign season when everyone is traveling on the same bus and staying at the same hotels and swapping stories and analyses at the same bars.

Posted by Fred App | December 7, 2007 9:01 AM