Nieman Web Site Posts Journalists' Suggestions for Political Coverage

[DeepModem Mom]

Editor & Publisher: Nieman Web Site Posts Journalists' Suggestions for Political Coverage
By Joe Strupp
Published: May 22, 2006

NEW YORK -- To mark the second anniversary of its Nieman Watchdog Web site, the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University is seeking comments from journalists about how to improve political coverage as the 2006 mid-term elections loom.

"Some veteran American journalists see the 2006 elections as offering the press a momentous opportunity to revolt against the status quo of spoon-fed sound bites and 'he-said, she-said' coverage," Watchdog editors Barry Sussman and Dan Froomkin said in a note on the Web site. "Responding to a one-question, e-mail survey from the Nieman Watchdog Project, some of these journalists, Nieman fellows of past years, urged reporters to: cover issues rather than events, and report on those issues consistently and deeply enough to bring clarity to readers or viewers; set agendas based on issues that are important to the public and aggressively pursue responses from candidates; expose political ploys, rather than fall for them; and pay extra attention this year to how the votes are counted."...

***

Among those already posted from some prominent journalists are the following:

"My fearless advice for 2006 political coverage is that we should pay as much attention as possible to the voters. Do all we can to examine what they think and to explain why they think it. Reporters should tirelessly seek out the electorate's perception and reaction to the candidates and to the issues. This should apply on both national and local levels." -- William German, editor emeritus, San Francisco Chronicle.

"Run as fast as you can from what the great John Galbraith called the 'conventional wisdom.' For example, The Washington Post started things off in 2000 with the headline on a piece about Al Gore: "He's B-o-o-o-ring," and Gore was finished. From then on virtually every TV commentator, followed by so many writers, disparaged Gore as a Bore. Nothing he did could shake it. Clearly he had a better grasp of the issues than Bush. But it was a kind of repeat of Reagan's jibe at Carter - 'There you go again,' which meant what? The point is that Gore was not a bore, or a policy wonk, or a nerd. But we rarely got past those television labels, and smart-ass commentators who didn't understand the issues decided to make fun of Gore. Who's laughing now?" - Saul Friedman, columnist, Newsday.

"My main concern is that we all rush to cover the same thing. We need to be using our increasingly scarce resources to cover DIFFERENT political stories. Some scandal breaks, and we all pile on, while problems arise elsewhere with no eyes on them." - Geneva Overholser, professor, University of Missouri School of Journalism....

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002540098

[Kagemusha]

1. "Who's laughing now?" Joe Klein, that's who.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh052206.shtml

[xultar]

2. I'll believe it when I see that the journalists want to move past the

status quo.

[grasswire]

3. Dan Froomkin is increasingly valuable as a protector...

...of liberty. He really cares about journalistic objectivity. And he's courageous enough to spank those who need it even when they're at his own newspaper.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Indeed! nt