Paul Krugman: What I Hate About Political Coverage

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT: September 19, 2007
What I Hate About Political Coverage

Warning: this is a bit (actually, more than a bit) of a rant.

One of my pet peeves about political reporting is the fact that some of my journalistic colleagues seem to want to be in another business – namely, theater criticism. Instead of telling us what candidates are actually saying – and whether it’s true or false, sensible or silly – they tell us how it went over, and how they think it affects the horse race. During the 2004 campaign I went through two months’ worth of TV news from the major broadcast and cable networks to see what voters had been told about the Bush and Kerry health care plans; what I found, and wrote about, were several stories on how the plans were playing, but not one story about what was actually in the plans.

There are two big problems with this kind of reporting. The important problem is that it fails to inform the public about what matters. In 2004, very few people had any idea about the very real differences between the candidates on domestic policy. It remains to be seen whether 2008 is any better.

The other problem, which has become very apparent lately, is that this sort of coverage often fails even on its own terms, because the way things look to inside-the-Beltway pundits can be very different from the way they look to real people.

Which brings me to the Petraeus hearing. To a remarkable extent, punditry has taken a pass on whether Gen. Petraeus’s picture of the situation in Iraq is accurate. Instead, it was all about the theatrics – about how impressive he looked, how well or poorly his Congressional inquisitors performed....But here’s the thing: new polls by CBS and Gallup show that the Petraeus testimony had basically no effect on public opinion: Americans continue to hate the war, and want out. The whole story about how the hearing had changed everything was a pure figment of the inside-the-Beltway imagination....

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/what-i-hate-about-political-coverage/

[rusty quoin]

1. Yes Krugman, "how it went over"

Information which is almost useless.

[antiimperialist]

2. Excellent article

9 American troops died the same day Petraeus was delivering his report; mainstream media pundits chose instead to focus not even on Moveon's ad, but in one sentence in the Moveon ad. Very few outlets considered this unusually high number of casualties in Iraq worthy of significant air time.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. That should have been the story, or at least A story, on that day.

Thanks for posting.

[Mojorabbit]

3. Yes

this hits the nail on the head

[pansypoo53219]

4. pshaw

doesn't he know that adult life is like everlasting high school? we HAVE to know who is best for prom king and who' the hottest.
appearances matter.
we wonks just have to sit over 'there'.

[tom_paine]

6. Once again, Krugman dissects and analyzes one of thousands of symptoms o the dying American Republic

Like watching the autopsy of a rape victim who was beaten to death, wholly unpleasant and made moreso bythe fact that the corpse is taking YEARS to fully expire.

Which on the one hand, is great, because who wants to see what the Bushie Final Solutions are? I mean, other than those who will staffthe camps or whatever it is this time around.

On the other hand, I think I speak for many of the 74% of American with 0% reperesentation when I say, "Enough with all the waiting and pussyfooting around. Just get on with your Final Solutions already!"