Does The Press Matter?

Krugman writes:

If so, the campaign has just taken a major turn in Mr. Obama’s favor. After all, if this campaign isn’t dominated by faux outrage over fake scandals, it will have to be about things that really did happen, like a failed economic policy and a disastrous war — both of which Mr. McCain promises will continue if he wins.

It's a good line. But of course if Democrats are really counting on responsible, substantive news coverage to hand them the election then John McCain has things in the bag. It's clear that the press, and thus the campaign as mediated by the press, will be dominated by some mix of fake scandals just as it always is (and if a fake scandal requires made up facts about Obama's record, then the facts shall be made up). The question is how much does this matter? Presumably it does matter at the margin.

And I think most of us liberals are pretty traumatized by the 2000 election when the press coverage was willfully horrible and things that made a difference at the margin turned out to be hugely important. But I find it hard to believe that, in general, the overall tenor of the media's coverage of silly campaign stories has a huge impact on election outcomes. Indeed, that's probably one reason why the quality is so low -- the stories are being produced by people who don't really think their work matters

Comments

You know, other people can cover stories too. The MSM might have badges, but regular people can do the job they refuse to do fairly easily.

In fact, there's a wonderful new way to get stories out. Some others might have heard of this site called "youtube", but it's new to me.

For instance, here's an example of coverage from the "liberal" side:

youtube.com/watch?v=iOl4iT46Eec

That is, of course, really stupid and it reveals the level that many "liberals" operate at. However, things like the following are more of a public service:

youtube.com/watch?v=tIK9ZawRMlg

A better question and a better questioner would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of views.

And, here's another example, that one featuring BHO lying and seemingly confirming something we're told doesn't exist. That video has 14,500 views; if someone presses him on follow-ups, it will get many times that.

I look forward to MattY encouraging his readers to get out there and do the reporting the MSM won't do.

Posted by TLB | July 5, 2008 4:22 PM

Oh, it matters. The Media reporting matters. George W. Bush would not have been a viable candidate without incompetent journalism and a corrupt, inane punditocrisy.

It is just that the consequences of actual governance also matter. After 8 years, the consequences of Bush's policies -- the failures that Krugman refer to -- will overwhelm the Media's foolishness.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | July 5, 2008 4:23 PM

Indeed, that's probably one reason why the quality is so low -- the stories are being produced by people who don't really think their work matters

No, the quality and tenor of the coverage are what they are because the people who own the media enterprises these reporters work for want it that way.

Breaking up the current media ownership structure needs to be a major goal of the Obama administration. The good news is that going to war against corporate media will produce no more adverse coverage for Obama than trying to appease them will.

Posted by jimBOB | July 5, 2008 4:25 PM

"I find it hard to believe that, in general, the overall tenor of the media's coverage of silly campaign stories has a huge impact on election outcomes."

Believe it, beee-atch. I know people who voted for Kerry and Gore in swing states who forward me Obama is Muslim, hates America, etc, emails. The media will let all these go through, like Iraq had WMDs, caused 9/11, etc.

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | July 5, 2008 4:26 PM

"Indeed, that's probably one reason why the quality is so low -- the stories are being produced by people who don't really think their work matters.

I'd have to disagree. None of these fake "scandals" are going to change the minds of reasonably intelligent people that are, to some extent, aware of the actual facts. This kind of 'reportage' is aimed directly at the lowest common denominator, & like it or not, that describes the majority of Americans.

As long as these stories can plant even a seed of doubt about a candidate (Obama's a muslim, a black terrorist with questionable patriotism) they'll have done their job & it will have mattered.

Posted by raff | July 5, 2008 4:31 PM

Matt, I've been reading you for 6 years now, and I have to tell you: Your comment section is embarrassing. You need to clean it up.

Posted by Walt | July 5, 2008 4:49 PM

"I find it hard to believe that, in general, the overall tenor of the media's coverage of silly campaign stories has a huge impact on election outcomes."

Thankfully I am not drunk enough yet to get truly worked up by that breathtakingly ignorant statement.

But it may lead me to be.

Posted by Andruw | July 5, 2008 5:07 PM

Given the thin-ness of Obama's record, it's completely fair to focus on what he claims to put forward as a great thing: his judgment.

Well. How should I rate the judgment of a man who called Reverend Wright a friend and mentor? How should I rate the judgment of a man who launched his political career in the house of a terrorist? How should I rate the judgment of a man who had his home underwritten by Tony Rezko, convicted felon? How should I rate the judgment of a man who won his state senate seat by going to court to get his opponents removed from the ballot so that he could run unopposed?

Without much of a record to look at, I'm left with looking at the sort of people he chose to spend his personal and professional life with - and it's not an encouraging list.

These are not "faux" issues - Obama has no record to examine. With McCain, for good and ill, there's a record. There's plenty of things in his record I dislike, a lot. With Obama, there's next to nothing - so what I'm left with his is judgment. And based on how he picks his friends and allies, I have to say - it's extremely suspect.

Posted by James Robertson | July 5, 2008 5:35 PM

James Robertson:

How should I rate the judgment of a man who called Reverend Wright a friend and mentor?

--You should seek to learn more about Jeremiah Wright and the black experience in America so that you might come to understand that he is actually a loyal and patriotic American.

How should I rate the judgment of a man who launched his political career in the house of a terrorist?

--A "terrorist" who became an upstanding American citizen at some point in his life and is now a college professor and social activist fighting for the rights of the under-privileged. It is in that context that Obama knows this man. If we turned over the rocks where right-wing politicians are hiding the unsavory "friends" that have given their campaigns a boost, we would find a lot to scare us about them -- and most of those won't have made something better of themselves later in life.

How should I rate the judgment of a man who had his home underwritten by Tony Rezko, convicted felon?

--Obama has a regular bank loan just like everyone else. His rather slim association with Rezko is just more of the guilt-by-association smearing that is curiously never leveled against Republicans. For example, the actually very close ties between Jack Abramoff, Rove and Bush.

How should I rate the judgment of a man who won his state senate seat by going to court to get his opponents removed from the ballot so that he could run unopposed?

--It is called playing by the rules, and Obama's explanation (as if he needs one) is that, if a campaign can't even follow the simple rules for gathering signatures, how well will it be able to govern?

Posted by J Bartlett | July 5, 2008 6:20 PM

John Kerry probably believed in 2004 that the bad faith media would have negligible effect on the presidential race. This year, the calibre of candidate and prevailing circumstances (primarily the unmotivated GOP base and worsening economic factors) bode more favorably for Democrats. But the want of reporter professionalism (or civic duty) is certainly a shame; we could have better Republicans and better Democrats.

Posted by bab23 | July 5, 2008 6:38 PM

This is exactly how I have been feeling with the media recently. With things going so far in Obamas favor people are losing interest in watching or reading about the race. Im sure it will change in a couple months but it seems like we really are in a dry spell as far as anything substantive.

This is not 2004 and people are tired of being bombarded with stupid scandals and charges. They would be best served taking a deep breath and letting things play out for the next month and then really hit it hard. God, take a vacation!! Everyone else is!

Posted by Josh | July 5, 2008 7:12 PM

But I find it hard to believe that, in general, the overall tenor of the media's coverage of silly campaign stories has a huge impact on election outcomes.

Right. Lucy Van Pelt called. She has a football she'd like you to kick.

Posted by ed | July 5, 2008 7:34 PM

Reverend Wright is a conspiracy nut who believes stupid things. He's both ignorant and idiotic. I have less than no respect for him. As to Ayers - he does not regret what he did, and in fact, wishes he had done more. Not only does he not deserve respect, he deserves disdain. The fact that Obama was willing to associate with either of these men puts his judgment in doubt.

But heck - let's assume, for the sake of argument, that both are upstanding men worthy of respect. What does it say about Obama's judgment that after years of association, he's willing to toss both of them under the bus?

The problem for you is that either way, he looks bad. Either he's willing to toss good men aside when partisan opponents object, or his taste in friends sucks.

yeah, there's a guy I want to follow.

Posted by James Robertson | July 5, 2008 7:48 PM

The press let the Swift Boaters have all the media time the needed and more. If the swift boat ads were not run at all or got limited time, the outcome would have favored Kerry. This was week after week, day after day and night after night of repeating the swift boat ad. I hope we never see the likes of that again.

Posted by Allen McQuarrie | July 5, 2008 7:56 PM

The press let the Swift Boaters have all the media time the needed and more. If the swift boat ads were not run at all or got limited time, the outcome would have favored Kerry. This was week after week, day after day and night after night of repeating the swift boat ad. I hope we never see the likes of that again.

Posted by Allen McQuarrie | July 5, 2008 7:56 PM

The press let the Swift Boaters have all the media time the needed and more. If the swift boat ads were not run at all or got limited time, the outcome would have favored Kerry. This was week after week, day after day and night after night of repeating the swift boat ad. I hope we never see the likes of that again.

Posted by Allen McQuarrie | July 5, 2008 7:56 PM

The press let the Swift Boaters have all the media time the needed and more. If the swift boat ads were not run at all or got limited time, the outcome would have favored Kerry. This was week after week, day after day and night after night of repeating the swift boat ad. I hope we never see the likes of that again.

Posted by Allen McQuarrie | July 5, 2008 7:56 PM

The press let the Swift Boaters have all the media time the needed and more. If the swift boat ads were not run at all or got limited time, the outcome would have favored Kerry. This was week after week, day after day and night after night of repeating the swift boat ad. I hope we never see the likes of that again.

Posted by Allen McQuarrie | July 5, 2008 7:57 PM

The press let the Swift Boaters have all the media time the needed and more. If the swift boat ads were not run at all or got limited time, the outcome would have favored Kerry. This was week after week, day after day and night after night of repeating the swift boat ad. I hope we never see the likes of that again.

Posted by Allen McQuarrie | July 5, 2008 7:57 PM

The press let the Swift Boaters have all the media time the needed and more. If the swift boat ads were not run at all or got limited time, the outcome would have favored Kerry. This was week after week, day after day and night after night of repeating the swift boat ad. I hope we never see the likes of that again.

Posted by Allen McQuarrie | July 5, 2008 7:57 PM

The press let the Swift Boaters have all the media time the needed and more. If the swift boat ads were not run at all or got limited time, the outcome would have favored Kerry. This was week after week, day after day and night after night of repeating the swift boat ad. I hope we never see the likes of that again.

Posted by Allen McQuarrie | July 5, 2008 7:57 PM

The press let the Swift Boaters have all the media time the needed and more. If the swift boat ads were not run at all or got limited time, the outcome would have favored Kerry. This was week after week, day after day and night after night of repeating the swift boat ad. I hope we never see the likes of that again.

Posted by Allen McQuarrie | July 5, 2008 7:57 PM

The press let the Swift Boaters have all the media time the needed and more. If the swift boat ads were not run at all or got limited time, the outcome would have favored Kerry. This was week after week, day after day and night after night of repeating the swift boat ad. I hope we never see the likes of that again.

Posted by Allen McQuarrie | July 5, 2008 7:57 PM

But what does Allen McQuarrie say?

Posted by Andruw | July 5, 2008 8:17 PM

If we turned over the rocks where right-wing politicians are hiding the unsavory "friends" that have given their campaigns a boost, we would find a lot to scare us about them -- and most of those won't have made something better of themselves later in life.

Hell, you don't even have to turn over the rocks-- plenty of them are hiding in plain sight, from convicted felon/radio host G. Gordon Liddy to members of Congress who actually create price lists for bribes ("Duke" Cunningham). But your larger point stands, and is worth bookmarking IMO.

Posted by latts | July 5, 2008 8:19 PM

Reverend Wright is a conspiracy nut who believes stupid things.

You know, so do all sorts of people. The practical-minded don't go into ministry. In fact, people in the ministry tend to have extreme, uncompromising views because that's their job. Perhaps you want to go to a church where the minister leads you in the pledge of alleigence every Sunday and tells you how you are the most awesome person in the world and how all of your secular beliefs are awesome, but that's because you're a narcissist.

The fact that Obama was willing to associate with [Ayers] puts his judgment in doubt.

Please explain how Obama is "associated" with Ayers and what the problem is, because you seem to have little clue here, and are just whipped up into some irrational outrage, of the sort I would expect from an extremist, ignorant conspiracy nut or simply one of those particular ignorant Republicans notable for the fact that he enjoys repeating stupid Republican talking points to his other stupid Republican friends. Since you actually have to deal with well-informed people here, you're obligated to cut the bullshit and not act like such a stupid jackass... save that your retarded right-wing asshole friends.

Posted by Tyro | July 5, 2008 8:19 PM

I think Allen McQuarrie was trying to make an illustrative point about repetition of an argument.

Actually the real problem is the commenting interface, which accepts your comment but doesn't send you any feedback telling you your comment went through, leading unfortunate folks like Allen to keep hitting the "Post" button because it doesn't look like anything happened.

Posted by jimBOB | July 5, 2008 8:37 PM

It doesn't matter because the VAST majority of people just do not pay close attention to this crap.

Certainly not now. We (myself included) have to keep the perspective that not everyone is a political junkie like we are. Even my wife had no idea about Wes Clark's comments, Obama's refinement remark, the fist-bump denial that wasn't, etc...

That's not to say we shouldn't call "bullshit" when it's bullshit but the perspective is important lest we waste our time on stupid bullshit.

Posted by djslippyb | July 5, 2008 8:44 PM

I see Mr. Robertson has taken my words to heart and has actually educated himself about Jeremiah Wright (not):

"Reverend Wright is a conspiracy nut who believes stupid things. He's both ignorant and idiotic. I have less than no respect for him."

-- Have you heard of the Tuskegee experiments? If not, search wikipedia. Rev. Wright is responding to real things that really happened to blacks in America. Pastors generally have a tendency to exaggerate the truth in order to drive it home; and that is all he can be accused of, which is a lot less than fellows like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, both of whom are considered wonderful and patriotic Americans.

"As to Ayers - he does not regret what he did, and in fact, wishes he had done more. Not only does he not deserve respect, he deserves disdain."

--You don't have to respect Ayers in order to understand why Obama would have a relationship with him. For better or worse, Ayers is an important figure in Chicago politics, and if you look at the people Obama has associated with, including Wright, Ayers and Father Pfleger, they are all very active in social causes in the Chicago area. Obama has working relationships with people whose views he does not agree with. This is the real world, and any politician who can't have a working relationship with individuals he doesn't agree with wouldn't get very far.

"The fact that Obama was willing to associate with either of these men puts his judgment in doubt. But heck - let's assume, for the sake of argument, that both are upstanding men worthy of respect. What does it say about Obama's judgment that after years of association, he's willing to toss both of them under the bus?"

--Despite David Brooks assertions to the contrary, Obama hasn't thrown anyone under any buses, trucks, etc. When Rev. Wright became angered at the way the national media was portraying him, Obama first stated that he could not reject him because it would be like rejecting his own family. Then, when Wright continued his angry speechifying, Obama left the church. He put distance between himself and his church because he felt all of the national scrutiny was hurting the church. He never rejected it or Wright at all -- those are just slanderous Republican talking points.

"The problem for you is that either way, he looks bad. Either he's willing to toss good men aside when partisan opponents object, or his taste in friends sucks."

I believe I have responded to this silly supposed catch-22. You Mr. Robertson are a victim of sound-bite news reporting and slander and slime merchants like Sean Hannity et al.

It is the first duty of the patriot to criticize his country when his conscience tells him to in order to make it better. I do not condone violence and I think Bill Ayers is a reprehensible fellow. However, I do not feel that Obama should be judged because of people he had a working relationship with. Politics makes strange bedfellows for sure.

What I find most troubling in America today is the rampant religification of capitalism. You won't find anyone calling rapacious capitalists (e.g. the oil companies) un-American, though they are and have been hurting our country for many decades. However, a man like Reverend Wright, who was a soldier and a citizen, who has spent his life looking out for the downtrodden and helpless, is trampled through the muck because in his anger at the worst of America, and in his attempts to better this country, he has been cast as an unpatriotic "America-hater". This is a huge injustice. I will say it again, in case the conservatives didn't hear -- to criticize his country with the aim of making it better is the first responsibility of a citizen.

Posted by J Bartlett | July 5, 2008 9:08 PM

jimBOB: In my experience, the comment always goes through. You gotta ignore the delays, and dead pages. The comment does eventually make it through the Atlantic server.

It is surprising that haloscan is (slightly) more reliable.

Posted by Andruw | July 5, 2008 10:17 PM

The issue about the posting software is that Matt, despite receiving tons of emails about it from me and others, just doesn't give a shit enough to bother to complain about it to The Atlantic.

Apparently he doesn't even care that it makes him look like an idiot.

I'm really getting the feeling that Matt is basically a total fraud - some half-drunk college kid stumbling through this nonsense without giving a shit at all about any of it - neither his opinions, his typos, his grammar, his bad links, the blog, his book - none of it seems to mean anything to him except as a front to cover up the meaninglessness of his entire life.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 5, 2008 10:53 PM

We should not vote for the people who are hold in high regard some persons who believe in stupid things.

Creationism and intelligent design are really stupid things. So are the desire to stay in Iraq for a hundred years and the belief that tax cuts for the wealthiest make for sound economic policy.

Let us not vote for the people who believe in stupid things.

Posted by gregor | July 5, 2008 11:11 PM

Andruw

Yes, we both know to ignore the fact that the interface doesn't give the proper feedback. Someone coming new to the site has no way to know this, however - that's why it's an unacceptable interface.

Not sure I go as far as to call Matt a fraud over it, though.

Posted by jimBOB | July 6, 2008 12:54 AM

You are wrong Matt. Alot of the average voter who doesn't read blogs and depends on the traditional media are primed for the misinformation campaign of the the traditional media.
we know that the press is the base of McSprinkles but, the average voter does not.
They believe they are being told the truth and therefore will believe what is peddled to them.
Unfortunately they still make up the majority of the voters.

Posted by vwcat | July 6, 2008 8:58 AM

But I find it hard to believe that, in general, the overall tenor of the media's coverage of silly campaign stories has a huge impact on election outcomes.

So if the American press was replaced by, say, France's press for this election, it would make no difference in the outcome?

Posted by owenz | July 6, 2008 11:37 AM

I would say that, after the recent Iraq dust-up, a significant percentage of low-information voters will roll their eyes when Obama mentions his withdrawal plan, since the media told them that Obama is only saying it for political gain and will shift his policy later.

Does Matt not remember how prevalent the "flip flopper" and "elitist" smears against Kerry were in 2004? These were the main topics talked about by anti-Kerry voters. Indeed, they were the dominant themes of the campaign, far more than even Iraq or the economy. These issues were prominent because because the MSM covered them on a daily basis, from the occasional verbal gaffe to Kerry windsurfing.

Posted by owenz | July 6, 2008 11:46 AM

The view that campaigns don't matter is popular in somce academic circles but is actually misguided for at least two reasons.

1) In every presidential election we've had in the modern era, both sides fought hard to win. If one side had not done so, you would have seen campaigns really matter. Its not that campaigns don't matter, it's that they generally more or less cancel out.

2) But they don't perfectly cancel out, and campaigns, which are influenced significantly by media coverage, could easily make a difference on the order of, say, a net 5 percentage points in the results. Since election margins are usually not gigantic, those 5 points can make a world of difference. Ask Al Gore and John Kerry.

Posted by The Fool | July 6, 2008 12:50 PM

It seems to me that coverage of things like Social Security and Free trade agreements don't matter as much as emotional and identity issues.

People are voting for a 'leader of the tribe'.

They project any belief they want onto a candidate they can identify with as part of their tribe.

Lies like the Swift boat stuff or constant references to a candidate as 'lactating' or as having expensive haircuts, etc, are VERY VERY VERY important because they alienate the voter from the candidate. They make the voter think that the candidate is not part of their tribe.

Posted by Chuck | July 7, 2008 10:18 AM

I liked the Krugman column. He has regained his equilibrium.

Happily he (or the NYTimes editor) saved his best line for last, which he put it italics.

"David Brooks is off today."

(same as it ever was)

Posted by Marcus Sitz | July 7, 2008 2:01 PM