I agree with you about President Biden. If he was 60 years old he’d be a heavy favorite for reelection but alas, every day he gets one day older. He can’t change that. He’s likely in better health than the obese, non-exercising, chocolate cake-eating Trump but he doesn’t APPEAR to be.
And as for coverage, I totally agree but for more restrained coverage to occur, news editors and directors will have to resist the temptation (cat nip) for eyeballs. A column header that says “Trump” unfortunately gets more readership that one that blares infrastructure or Ukraine, akin to how stories about a gruesome train derailment or axe murder are hard to resist. Also, the media has to get over the notion that they have to be even-handed in coverage…a jaywalking ticket of one candidate shouldn’t be covered with the same intensity as the armed robbery by another.
I also think that since much of what Trump said when he was first a candidate was so outlandish and/or disgusting that journalists presumed reporting it perhaps presumed readers/viewers would immediately reject him. No such excuse in 2023.
Dave, I disagree with you on several points but I won't take up the space to detail our points of difference. But you yourself nailed the principal problem with contemporary journalism--the media follow the next shiny thing whether it is significant or not. More often than not, it isn't. Enough said.
Julie, several readers have written me to point out that when I wrote “I could care less about Hunter Biden” that I was saying the opposite of what I intended. I should have written “I could NOT care less...”. Thanks to eagle-eyed readers for the correction. Bottom line: I don’t care!
Dave's columns are always thought provoking. Dave left off the roles of political parties and public officials. (I will offer some ideas on the latter).
What was done after 2016 to prevent the media's coverage of certain issues or candidates sucking all the oxygen out of the room? Were there national media conferences discussing how to address this?
Historically speaking, what has the media operationalized to prevent re-occurrences--are there successes somewhere in this country? Were there not fail safe standards instituted?
I agree media needs to stop the “breathless coverage” of incendiary media statements, –but who goes first in the world of media? How do we reward the media who slow down this constant coverage? Since it is the wild west when it comes to social media and absence of legal, ethical or societal restraints, how do we penalize media who promote fake news, fake science, etc.?
A practical modest solution: I agree every newsroom should start a whiteboard or a spreadsheet to track coverage. Our journalism schools can take the initiative on this; they can start with reporting in comparable school papers.
Another idea: When I retired from the legislature in 94, a group of R’s and D’s and representatives from all 3 branches of the government created the Iowa Institute for Public Leadership. Its purpose was to find common ground, not on specific issues, like CAFO’s or abortion. Its purpose and its conferences talked about common ground on conflict resolution, diversity, ethics, communications and a greater understanding of all 3 branches of government–judges sat at the same training, as legislators and state agency leaders (we focussed on future leaders, but not exclusively). Originally run out of ISU’s extension office, it stopped after a few years due to lack of funding, but not due to lack of interest. I had modeled this effort based on the work a WI Repub Senator and myself did in creating the ongoing Bowhay Inst, sponsored by the Midwest Council of State Government.
Perhaps the media and elected officials would do well to expand upon the Bowhay Institutes model, if not the Iowa version. If media techs can work together to rein in AI, cannot the media or our public officials also collaborate?
Ralph, thanks for your thoughtful input. You’re right about who in the media starts offering balanced coverage? During my career, I often scoffed at those who claimed there was a “media conspiracy” on some topic or another. It’s laughable. There’s no media coordination center. Journalists are damned independent. That’s why we go into journalism to begin with. We don’t like to cooperate with ANYBODY. We are competitive with other journalists. We couldn’t cooperate if we tried, with perhaps the rare exception of electronic media coverage of Iowa courts.
So I don’t hold out much hope of some over-arching organization fixing the problems evident in today’s political press.
When I hear people criticize the press, I cringe and relate two stories in my years in public office and working in and around govt. Only two —and even then, one was Yepsen writing how I traded a vote to get money for the chemistry building at ISU (I never traded votes, but people at ISU liked reading about it). The second was a DMR reporter who, in the rush of a legislative session, did not check some statements by a competing lobbyist. So, I had almost all positive experiences with non print and print media.
I agree about preservation of an independent media. I would also argue that we still need to try something to combat fake news and inability of social media to police itself. Would any of our journalism schools consider offering classes or forums on these topics?
Distrust in government and media, if not all institutions, is so low that I think there is little to risk.
I totally agree with you, Dave. On every point. I got so sick and tired of Trump's zany media attention, that when he finally was ousted by the American voters, I just dropped out of ALL national media coverage, in the effort to preserve my blood pressure.
I wish you were News Director of the U.S.! Also, I will take Biden’s speaking style over any of the mean, bigoted, manipulative garbage coming out of trump. Biden’s motives are pure. Can’t say the same for the other guy.
Dave, great piece as usual. Especially your quote from Van Jones that "this is the campaign." But I disagree that the entire blame lies with Trump. He doesn't make the media report on his outrageous social media postings, or cover live his every motorcade to court or every legal filing. They do it for the same reasons they did in 2015 & 2016 -- it gets eyeballs. I agree with your solutions at the end -- stop covering every minute detail. Exercise some editorial control over their own product. In short, wake me when the trial(s) start.
Dave, you're spot on. It's time to let Trump fade into prison blues.
I agree with you about President Biden. If he was 60 years old he’d be a heavy favorite for reelection but alas, every day he gets one day older. He can’t change that. He’s likely in better health than the obese, non-exercising, chocolate cake-eating Trump but he doesn’t APPEAR to be.
And as for coverage, I totally agree but for more restrained coverage to occur, news editors and directors will have to resist the temptation (cat nip) for eyeballs. A column header that says “Trump” unfortunately gets more readership that one that blares infrastructure or Ukraine, akin to how stories about a gruesome train derailment or axe murder are hard to resist. Also, the media has to get over the notion that they have to be even-handed in coverage…a jaywalking ticket of one candidate shouldn’t be covered with the same intensity as the armed robbery by another.
Rod, that’s a good analogy about jaywalking.
Plus the Orange Dude looks like he’s loaded to the gills most of the time. Check those eyes.
👍
I also think that since much of what Trump said when he was first a candidate was so outlandish and/or disgusting that journalists presumed reporting it perhaps presumed readers/viewers would immediately reject him. No such excuse in 2023.
Dave, I disagree with you on several points but I won't take up the space to detail our points of difference. But you yourself nailed the principal problem with contemporary journalism--the media follow the next shiny thing whether it is significant or not. More often than not, it isn't. Enough said.
Sadly, Trump has mastered the art of always appearing to be the "shiny thing" the media and the general public can't resist.
YES, it is about time to stop all the FREE publicity Trump gets. There are other events happening, not just him - over & over again! WHO CARES ????
Nailed it! Who cares about Hunter? And why quote Trumps rants? Exhausting
Julie, several readers have written me to point out that when I wrote “I could care less about Hunter Biden” that I was saying the opposite of what I intended. I should have written “I could NOT care less...”. Thanks to eagle-eyed readers for the correction. Bottom line: I don’t care!
Dave's columns are always thought provoking. Dave left off the roles of political parties and public officials. (I will offer some ideas on the latter).
What was done after 2016 to prevent the media's coverage of certain issues or candidates sucking all the oxygen out of the room? Were there national media conferences discussing how to address this?
Historically speaking, what has the media operationalized to prevent re-occurrences--are there successes somewhere in this country? Were there not fail safe standards instituted?
I agree media needs to stop the “breathless coverage” of incendiary media statements, –but who goes first in the world of media? How do we reward the media who slow down this constant coverage? Since it is the wild west when it comes to social media and absence of legal, ethical or societal restraints, how do we penalize media who promote fake news, fake science, etc.?
A practical modest solution: I agree every newsroom should start a whiteboard or a spreadsheet to track coverage. Our journalism schools can take the initiative on this; they can start with reporting in comparable school papers.
Another idea: When I retired from the legislature in 94, a group of R’s and D’s and representatives from all 3 branches of the government created the Iowa Institute for Public Leadership. Its purpose was to find common ground, not on specific issues, like CAFO’s or abortion. Its purpose and its conferences talked about common ground on conflict resolution, diversity, ethics, communications and a greater understanding of all 3 branches of government–judges sat at the same training, as legislators and state agency leaders (we focussed on future leaders, but not exclusively). Originally run out of ISU’s extension office, it stopped after a few years due to lack of funding, but not due to lack of interest. I had modeled this effort based on the work a WI Repub Senator and myself did in creating the ongoing Bowhay Inst, sponsored by the Midwest Council of State Government.
Perhaps the media and elected officials would do well to expand upon the Bowhay Institutes model, if not the Iowa version. If media techs can work together to rein in AI, cannot the media or our public officials also collaborate?
Ralph, thanks for your thoughtful input. You’re right about who in the media starts offering balanced coverage? During my career, I often scoffed at those who claimed there was a “media conspiracy” on some topic or another. It’s laughable. There’s no media coordination center. Journalists are damned independent. That’s why we go into journalism to begin with. We don’t like to cooperate with ANYBODY. We are competitive with other journalists. We couldn’t cooperate if we tried, with perhaps the rare exception of electronic media coverage of Iowa courts.
So I don’t hold out much hope of some over-arching organization fixing the problems evident in today’s political press.
When I hear people criticize the press, I cringe and relate two stories in my years in public office and working in and around govt. Only two —and even then, one was Yepsen writing how I traded a vote to get money for the chemistry building at ISU (I never traded votes, but people at ISU liked reading about it). The second was a DMR reporter who, in the rush of a legislative session, did not check some statements by a competing lobbyist. So, I had almost all positive experiences with non print and print media.
I agree about preservation of an independent media. I would also argue that we still need to try something to combat fake news and inability of social media to police itself. Would any of our journalism schools consider offering classes or forums on these topics?
Distrust in government and media, if not all institutions, is so low that I think there is little to risk.
Ralph
I totally agree with you, Dave. On every point. I got so sick and tired of Trump's zany media attention, that when he finally was ousted by the American voters, I just dropped out of ALL national media coverage, in the effort to preserve my blood pressure.
I wish you were News Director of the U.S.! Also, I will take Biden’s speaking style over any of the mean, bigoted, manipulative garbage coming out of trump. Biden’s motives are pure. Can’t say the same for the other guy.
Dave, great piece as usual. Especially your quote from Van Jones that "this is the campaign." But I disagree that the entire blame lies with Trump. He doesn't make the media report on his outrageous social media postings, or cover live his every motorcade to court or every legal filing. They do it for the same reasons they did in 2015 & 2016 -- it gets eyeballs. I agree with your solutions at the end -- stop covering every minute detail. Exercise some editorial control over their own product. In short, wake me when the trial(s) start.