Policy Ratios

Kevin Drum said yesterday:

Of the three basic types of campaign coverage -- horserace/process stories; "outrage of the day" hyperventilating; and actual policy coverage -- I'd peg the blogosphere's overall percentages at about 40/50/10. That's probably better than Chris Matthews, but not that much better.

I think that's the wrong way to look at it. I don't think I wrote any posts yesterday covering substantive policy issues in the Democratic primary campaign because nothing new happened in terms of substantive policy issues. And so it goes. It's hardly MSNBC's fault that in the midst of an interesting primary campaign it has some days where its campaign coverage is all horse race -- some days nothing happens except the horses go racing; after all the campaigns are long and you can't release new policy ideas every day. The trouble is what the press does on the days when policy news does happen -- the tendency is to cover the policy news as a kind of horse race story rather than doing some coverage of the policy question and accepting the reality that there'll be plenty of days down the road when there's nothing to cover but the horse race.

Comments

Why precisely does blogging force you to focus only on that which happens today? Couldn't you write about policy matters that came up some time in the last week? That might be valuable, as apparently the MSM doesn't do policy even on the day when it happens.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 23, 2008 12:01 PM

in the midst of an interesting primary campaign it has some days where its campaign coverage is all horse race -- some days nothing happens except the horses go racing; after all the campaigns are long and you can't release new policy ideas every day

True, as far as it goes, but it's not just horse race that the media covers-- they go looking for conflict among the campaigns.

And that coverage is 80% gossip, 15% competing claims with zero or unreliable fact-checking, and 5% substantive differences.

Plus, as you point out, it's not exactly like we've all been overwhelmed with policy coverage from earlier in the campaign.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 23, 2008 12:02 PM

What Tim said. This post is a bit of a cop-out. You could write a ton on policy even when campaigns don't release anything. It's complicated to figure out what will work. There are entire blogs just on health policy. You could also do a lot more work digging in to the candidates history to figure out more on what policy choices they would make once in office.

Posted by mq | January 23, 2008 12:03 PM

the tendency is to cover the policy news as a kind of horse race story

Since the candidates themselves often introduce and discuss - especially in debates - their policies in the context of a horse race ("my plan is universal, but barack's only covers rich, white doctors and lawyers who listen to NPR in their volvos...."), the press is naturally going to cover that as well.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 23, 2008 12:06 PM

Alternatively, the news programs could send reporters to places like Kenya where actual news is occurring, and wait until something substantive happens before doing a story on the primary.

Wow, I almost wrote that with a straight face.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 23, 2008 12:09 PM

Also, on any particular blog there is room for much more context and numerous campaign posts.

This is as opposed to horserace coverage on TV/Cable news which may constitute upwards of 80%-90% of that days campaign coverage.

Posted by ajesquire | January 23, 2008 12:10 PM

Also, on any particular blog there is room for much more context and numerous campaign posts.

This is as opposed to horserace coverage on TV/Cable news which may constitute upwards of 80%-90% of that days campaign coverage.

Posted by ajesquire | January 23, 2008 12:11 PM

It's also of note that one of the campaigns actually did release some policy documents yesterday. The Clinton campaign accompanied its Roe anniversary statement with a set of policies on related issues of contraception and gender equality.

Posted by rufustfyrfly | January 23, 2008 12:30 PM

The goal of "substantive analysis" of "policy documents" is a mirage. The general outlines of the candidates' policies matter, but the distance between proposals in the heat of campaigning and enactment following the legislative process is so great as to make details pretty much meaningless. The "policy" documents are pretty much purely campaign spin. The only people who read them are lobbyists and other campaigns. (I write this as someone who was deeply involved in the issues shop of a major presidential campaign a generation ago.)

Posted by DHN | January 23, 2008 12:35 PM

I think a good example is to look at the blogs' coverage of the different Dem economic stimulus packages. To me, I would like to see more coverage of what the candidates say they will do to address latest developments as a way of getting insight into how they will govern. As far as I can tell, the progressive blogsphere response to the plans and the ensuing analysis by Krugman has been a yawn. MY did one post on it and that was strictly a quote from Krugman and an opposing quote from Brad DeLong. At least MY did a post on it, which is better than most.

Posted by Dennis_D | January 23, 2008 12:51 PM

here we are now entertain us

no?

operate remote

Nielson

lose money

Glenn Beck!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by milo | January 23, 2008 12:52 PM

I can't really blame blogs or the MSM for the lack of substantive policy coverage because, let's face it: The public isn't interested. Voters are looking for a candidate whose policies generally conform to their moral code and worldview, but for the most part - and I think this is more true of Democrats, since their candidates' policy positions are almost distinguishable from one another - they are interested in a candidate who sounds presidential, appears to be honest, exudes confidence, speaks in an articulate manner, etc.

In talking to Democrats about who they plan to vote for, the discussion is almost never about policy issues. Usually it's about which candidate has the best chance to win in the fall and who comes across as more likeable or seems to have a better command of the issues; i.e. who does the best job of appearing -not necessarily being - competent. In poll after poll, voters claim to be tired of personal attacks and profess a willingness to focus on the issues. And in election after election, the candidate who does the best job of gaming the system is the one who wins.

I can't blame the media for giving its public exactly what they want.

Posted by Mike LeP | January 23, 2008 12:53 PM

To echo what has been said above in slightly different form: the "nothing new happened today in policy" is exactly the justification mainstream journalism offers for its own skimpy policy analysis. It's a bad excuse.

That said, no offense, Matt, but you've never done policy analysis. It's not why anyone reads you, and anyway it's not your strength. You're good at dissecting the logic of various statements, not very good at independently analyzing the truth of those claims. Where you're generally strong is in reading widely and linking to the people who are trained and equipped to make those kinds of analyses. That's something mainstream journalism does far too rarely.

Posted by Antid Oto | January 23, 2008 1:11 PM

I don't think I wrote any posts yesterday covering substantive policy issues in the Democratic primary campaign because nothing new happened in terms of substantive policy issues.

I don't say this to be snarky, but why not write about...something else? Being a professional blogger I know you have the same incentives to over-analyze a political campaign that members of the more traditional media have, but there's really quite a lot going on in the world. Quite frankly, the horse-race stuff and "outrage of the day" schtick (I'm thinking of blogs other than this one) gets tiresome for those of us who read blogs or write smaller blogs of our own.

Posted by Xanthippas | January 23, 2008 1:27 PM

The trouble is what the press does on the days when policy news does happen -- the tendency is to cover the policy news as a kind of horse race story rather than doing some coverage of the policy question and accepting the reality that there'll be plenty of days down the road when there's nothing to cover but the horse race.

ignoring other aspects of your post, and some of the valid criticisms contained above, I couldn't agree more with this statement. policy proposals are often boiled down to "this component was crafted to appeal to constituency X, or to the voters in state Y" rather than examined in a substantive manner, highlighting important philosophical and policy differences between the candidates.

Posted by looj | January 23, 2008 1:48 PM

Why precisely does blogging force you to focus only on that which happens today?

I have to agree with Tim. Having a blog combined with the power of Google gives you an incredible advantage over the television news, radio, and even the daily newspaper. The substantive posts you write are bound to be longer lasting than anything you write about the horserace. And for good reason. Most horserace commentary turns out to be complete nonsense in the long run.

And what do you mean nothing happened recently? We've got accusations that Obama worked with a slumlord, Hillary is accused of supporting the egregious bankruptcy bill, the housing market is collapsing, Congress is pushing Bush's FISA expansion (again), Republicans just rejected an SCHIP expansion, Democrats caved (again) to Bush's whim on the defense spending bill. Is there nothing of interest in there?

Posted by Jinchi | January 23, 2008 2:00 PM

And what do you mean nothing happened recently? We've got accusations that Obama worked with a slumlord, Hillary is accused of supporting the egregious bankruptcy bill, the housing market is collapsing, Congress is pushing Bush's FISA expansion (again), Republicans just rejected an SCHIP expansion, Democrats caved (again) to Bush's whim on the defense spending bill. Is there nothing of interest in there?

You have Democratic heavies Rahm Emanuel and Senator Kennedy telling Bill Clinton to cool it. Dowd had a good column today. The news to me is that Rove and the Republicans have taught the Clintons well.

You have Democrats folding on the FISA expansion, except Leahy (who endorsed Obama).

The Guardian piece Matt linked to was very informative about Hillary and Obama's legislative records. However it didn't mention her "not present" voting on the horrible Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Schumer and Obma voted no. As America slides deeper into recession that law - which to his credit Bill Clinton had vetoed - will devastate the lower classes who supposedly the Democrats represent, while at the same time it will help enrich the Republicans' constituents. Not present?

Posted by Peter K. | January 23, 2008 2:25 PM

I think the point is that the blogosphere is slowly becoming part of the village and it is time to stop it before it is too late!

Matt, you will succeed as part of the village, but is that what you want? Really? If it is, then it doesn't matter what you say now.

Posted by bajsa | January 23, 2008 2:43 PM

Sorry looks like I was wrong. According to Glenn Greenwald, Senator Leahy - along with Reid - is performing poorly regarding Bush's FISA law. Both Clinton and Obama had promised to help Sens. Dodd and Feingold, hopefully they will.

Posted by Peter K. | January 23, 2008 2:58 PM

The trouble is what the press does on the days when policy news does happen -- the tendency is to cover the policy news as a kind of horse race story

Interestingly, David_D linked to Matthew's post about the two stimulus packages. And looking at that post, Matthew's coverage of the stimulus packages was as a horse race story. Pull quote from Matthew: "To me, I see documents that are almost entirely about political positioning."

Posted by Al | January 23, 2008 3:06 PM

No -- don't libel Leahy! He's good on this. In fact, he's speaking out against FISA immunity on the floor right now.

Posted by mq | January 23, 2008 3:06 PM

The media does a miserable job of informing voters who the candidates are and what interesting, challenging things happened to them in the past.

For the life of me I don't see why "Horserace!" obessesses them so outside actual voting nights or major poll results.

A. How many people know Hillary failed her DC Bar exam, spent her whole career almost entirely absent of litigation work, but working as a "connector and greeter"? And how many times has the media discussed it in context of the more famous claim she is "One of America's 100 best Female Lawyers"?

B. How many people know John McCain was passed over for Admiral on grounds of poor temperment, erratic behavior, judgement? Or have examined McCain's stubborn "my way or the highway" jet fighter jock's management style as remarkably similar to Dubya's, which both men cheerfully admitted to back in 2000? Or know of his vendettas and specific betrayals?? Or that his melanoma was on 3 separate occurances?

C. Or that John Edward's famous 'Millworker father" was actually the factory boss most of Edward's childhood?

D. That Rudy was going to be a priest, got to the Seminary and realized what a life without pussy or bullying people around meant.

E. That Mitt Romney's Dad was poor as a young man and never got a college degree. That his Mom had signed a 3-year MGM movie contract.
That Mitt was declared dead once at the scene of an accident? That he rose to be a senior Elder (Bishop) in the Church? Or that he had a 3.97 GPA in college?

F. When will media note that Mike Huckabee is a very smart guy? That his powers of communication are so good he built up the two largest Baptist congregations in Arkansas?

G. That Ron Paul ran for Congress when he figured out that he or his partner had delivered all the babies in his District and that the parents thought he was super. That he became pro-life when he threw up at Duke after seeing a still-moving 3rd Trimester fetus being thrown in a bucket and left to die. Or that Ron Paul was once the sprint champion of Pennsylvania in the 220?

H. Obama gets the full media worship of aspects of his biography and the sort of fluffery only McCain of the other candidates is rewarded with. With, like McCain, the media careful to avoid negative aspects of Obama's past.

************
We don't get anything from the media to educate voters. Just playing "gotcha", interviewing cretins or campaign workers who think Hillary's laugh is important - or statements and reasons why a candidate 15 points behind might move to 5 points behind, and why that "move in the polls" is so critical.

Posted by chris ford | January 23, 2008 3:20 PM

Peter K, you can say what you want about Hillary's voting record. God knows it's far from perfect. But the only reason she wasn't present to vote on the Bankruptcy bill is that the vote came up on the day Bill went in for open-heart surgery.

I think MY's got a good point when he says this:

The trouble is what the press does on the days when policy news does happen -- the tendency is to cover the policy news as a kind of horse race story . . .

It's a bit more subtle than that, though. The media actually covers policy in terms of positioning--as if no politician's policy proposals could be heart-felt--they all must be ploys to manipulate or buy off this or that constituency or efforts to make themselves seem "tough" or "compassionate". I do think that this is the key to the MSMs failure on policy discussions.

Also, during the primary, policy differences are far less noticeable. The differences are generally in matters of emphasis and not on core principles. Do we really want Matt to dig into a fine grained discussion of the difference between Obama and HRC's healthcare proposals?

During the general, my bet is that we see a lot more policy talk on all the blogs.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 23, 2008 4:37 PM

No -- don't libel Leahy! He's good on this. In fact, he's speaking out against FISA immunity on the floor right now.

Yeah I thought Leahy was pretty good on most of the post- 911" drift towards dictatorship" stuff Bush was pulling, but Greenwald reported Leahy was helping Reid squash the filibuster.

Posted by Peter K. | January 23, 2008 5:46 PM

This is just a demo of how Matt posts in collusion with Josh Marshall, who just had a post up on how TPM gets criticized for being "All Horse Race All the Time" - when they're not being "All Republican Corruption All the Time" (except for the four Congressman labeled as traitors by Sibel Edmonds, which Josh has ignored completely because Israel is at risk there...)

Marshall's explanation wasn't much better than Matt's, so presumably Matt cribbed his from Marshall.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 23, 2008 9:08 PM

No offense, Matt, but you say some very silly things sometimes. Covering the campaign based upon what happened in a given day is nearly a working definition of a horse race coverage.

There was a time when polls were outside the bounds of professional journalism. People who had access to a printing press provided what they thought to be pertinent information/ analysis.

A journalist used to give people stuff to think about. These days, you folks spend most of your time telling us what people think, guessing about what people think, and trying to predict the future, all the while bemoaning Maureen Dowd's dick-shallow coverage.

Posted by john stephen lewis | January 24, 2008 10:44 AM