Reduce The Bias: Journalists In Partnership With The Electorate

As the 2018 mid-term elections approach, perhaps it’s time to step back just a bit and take stock of what issues are going to be big players on the field in November, what issues will take the bench in the minds of most of the nation’s voters, and how best the media should cover these topics.

For those of us who instinctively recoil at almost every pronouncement (or mis-pronouncement) from the current president and the non-professionals on his staff, it is deceptively easy to find fault and cast aspersions on the president’s gelatinous policies and the people around Mr. Trump who fail to define and solidify those policies on an almost-daily basis. If any member of the legion of full-time, legitimately-accredited journalists has a problem covering this administration, it’s a problem of drinking from the firehose of incredulous statements gushing out of virtually every compass-point of the White House—West Wing, East Wing, South Lawn, North Lawn.

I think we’ve gotten to a point where the journalistic challenge is not what to believe or disbelieve; disbelief appears to be the default mode now among the White House correspondents, daily news reporters, and national columnists I know and follow. The oily puddles of obfuscation, mis-direction, center-of-gravity-shifting, and incompetent messaging that pool in the corridors of the Trump White House require reporters to don Sarah-Sanders-proof HazMat suits sprayed with an etymological-cleansing surfactant that resists the clumping tendencies of every presidential utterance and tweet (for image sake, think of coating yourself with dishwasher detergent before you step into a pond of grease—should that be your assignment).

Even seasoned WH reporters familiar with such BS-protective garb find this presidency to be a daunting challenge to the spirit and mission of journalism, First Amendment and all. 

The press corps’ frustration is palpable even through the screens of our televisions, laptops, and phones. More and more, we are seeing what appear to be collaborative efforts—across media companies—by WH reporters to shore up each other’s questions in a sort of “I-have-your-back” when it comes to Sander’s daily diva dose of dissing. 

Even with collegial protection, being whipsawed by an administration’s disinformation machinery would leave almost any news professional wondering if what he or she is doing is making any difference at all. Indeed, isn’t it often reported that the public’s faith in the news media is at an all-time low? 

A Pew Research poll taken last year would seem to bolster that opinion:

My biggest concern is with the response to "does the news media deal fairly with all sides." At best, only 46% of Democrats believed the media was putting out fair and balanced stories. The number among Independents, that crucial pool of potential swing votes, was 27% trustworthiness. 

And if we look at the public's sources of news to tease out the ways in which news is promulgated across the 
news-consumer landscape, we find not even half (46%) of the news we deliver is arriving via legitimate news organizations. Word of mouth from friends, associates, or arm's-length acquaintances is the conduit for that balance of news stories. From Polling Report.com, this data from a Quinnipiac report: 

This could be disheartening news for many reporters, news producers and anchors, but....

“It ain’t necessarily so,” comes the message from far outside the Beltway. “Just do your job and quit your bitching,” is the surprising admonition of many Americans who do pay attention to news makers and news reporters. Really? Yes. 

As reported last month by David Bauder of the AP, twin surveys conducted this spring by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the American Press Institute, “…found about 3 in 4 journalists believe the public’s level of trust in the news media has decreased in the past year. Yet only 44 percent of American adults actually say their level of trust has decreased.” [italics mine]

According to Tom Rosenstiel, executive director of the American Press Institute, “The public actually wants what most journalists say they want to give them — news stories that are factual and offer context and analysis. But the public doesn’t feel like they’re seeing enough of that work, with 42 percent of Americans saying journalists stray too far into commentary, according to the new research.” 

So where do Americans want the media to focus? 

A recent  NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked a sampling of voters nationwide the following questions: 

Please tell me which one or two of these items you think will be the most important factor in deciding your vote: Health care. The economy and jobs. Guns. Taxes and spending. Immigration. The candidates' opposition to Donald Trump. The candidates' support for Donald Trump. Foreign policy and terrorism." If only one choice: "And, which of these issues will be the second most important factor in deciding your vote?"
			1st choice	1st + 2nd choices
			%	%
	Health care		22	38
	Economy, jobs		19	37
	Guns		13	25
	Taxes, spending		11	24
	Immigration		10	23
	Opposition to Trump		7	12
	Support for Trump		7	12
	Foreign policy, terrorism		6	18
	Other (vol.)		1	3
	All equally (vol.)		1	2
	None of these (vol.)		-	2
	Unsure/No answer		3	1

Jon Parton, writing this past January for Courthouse News Service, reported on a first-of-the-year Gallup and Knight Foundation survey that suggested “most Americans believe in the role of journalism in a democracy, but are distrustful of current news media and are unable to cite objective news sources, according to a new poll.

Parton’s story continued, “A Gallup and Knight Foundation survey released Monday [January 15] showed that eight out of 10 Americans believe the news media is important in informing the public of current events and holding government officials responsible for their actions.

“But only 33 percent of those polled have a favorable opinion of news media, compared to 43 percent who view it unfavorably. Trust in mass media has declined since 1976 when 72 percent of Americans, fresh from investigative pieces into the Watergate scandal and the Pentagon Papers, had more regard for journalism.

“’There really is consensus that free media is important,” said Sam Gill, Knight’s vice president for communities and impact in an interview with USA Today. ‘But most people do not believe it is fulfilling its functions’.”

I ran into a similar disconnect between politicians and the Congress while I was working on Capitol Hill: All politics is local. “Love my Congressman, hate the Congress,” was a familiar refrain at district and state levels of national-elective office. And if you drilled down, as I did as a press secretary in the House and Senate, you could find a similar refrain sung by Representatives and Senators about their local or state news contacts. There were many community and regional reporters who were, if nothing else, appreciated for their local-angle stories more so than stories written by their national counterparts who, my bosses often groused, “didn’t get it right” (even when I knew the national story was spot-on).

Of course this all makes complete sense, and I’m not revealing anything new to anyone who has followed politics, politicians, and the news organizations covering them. Such as been the love/hate nature of public/politician/press relationships since the first stirrings of the Republic in the 18th century. To be crude about it, you take your feed from the trough with the food you like, which is not necessarily the food that is best for you, even if that best-food trough is closer.

So, coming back to my lede, what above-the-fold front-page issues should the media be covering in the 2018 elections runup, and what issues, tempting as they are, should be below-the-fold, or on page 2 or deeper? If, as the Gallup-Knight poll suggests, 80 percent of the public is asking the media to inform them of current events and hold government officials responsible for their actions, and to do so as a “free media” “fulfilling its functions,” then we must try harder to turn away from the trough of tasty news—Stormy, Michael, Vladimir, and Kim—and focus on the trough of local importance, brimming with the bread-and-butter issues most relevant to the American public as it examines its voting options.

The White House election machinery is already cranked up to portray any candidate—of either party—who either refuses to ride the Trump wagon, or who disparages the wagon’s driver, as disloyal losers, unpatriotic snowflakes, and elitist snobs. The Trump team will primp, pose, and posture around the rouge-dusted issues of immigration, the faithless media, our failed allies, our misunderstood foes, improvised trade and tariff statistics, and, of course, the witch hunt.

I have lived in Ohio, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Colorado, and I’ve worked for House and Senate members from Florida, Arkansas, Alaska, and North Carolina. No matter how much time has passed since I lived or worked in these states and congressional districts, I can say without a doubt the big issues for the voters are now, and will be in November, jobs, the cost of living, taxes, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and national security.

This true, and broad, base of voters is not going to be deceived by Trumpian attacks on Robert Mueller; they are not in fear for their lives from rampaging hordes of immigrants; they are concerned about, but don’t obsess over, North Korea or Russia or China or Brexit. Taking a knee is not on their radar. 

That is not to say...and I want to emphasize this...that the public is not paying close attention to Trump's execrable performance as a national leader and international statesman. I believe the American voter, when put to the test over whether he or she has faith in White House leadership on the global stage, will mark down Trump for his performance to-date. An all-cap tweet late Sunday night (July 22) from Trump to Iran, threatening war, should be chilling to any American: 

Coupled with his post-Putin-summit tweets and grammar walk-backs and additional walk-backs to the walk-backs, and further muddied by North Korea's pre-ordained dismissal of Trump's claims of great things for nuclear disarmament on the Korean Peninsula, the public should be very wary of the president's ability to hold the center when it comes to international diplomacy. I have said before, and I repeat it here, that I believe Mr. Trump poses a clear and present danger to the well-being of every American, and to the stability of our allies. 

But, frankly, I think the public, writ large, is quite tired, if not skeptical, of Trump's stream of rambling tweets and misstatements. It is the news media's job to report them, to analyze them, to even offer opinions on them in editorial pages and discuss them on cable news. We should not assume that these major issues--and I don't for a moment dismiss their importance to American security (whether overt military, or covert election meddling)--are consuming the dinner-table, local cafe, or public gathering conversations about November's elections. 

What Trump's blusters, allegations, hate speech, and media bashing are consuming, however, are the relationships between and among Americans. The chasm dividing left and right, silent Americans from shouters, reason and logic from irrational, knee-jerk thought, progressives from Luddites, is widening and deepening, of that there is little doubt. 

Americans will factor these things into their voting decisions, of course. Voters will look at candidates and apply a very personal matrix over each one, a matrix that will never fill out perfectly, but will serve to filter some bullshit from truth, some Trumpian allegiance from national interest, and it is the media's charge to help the electorate sort all of that out in the most unbiased way possible.   

The soybean farmer wants to sell his or her produce at a fair price to a world market; the small business owner wants to grow his or her business under fair tax laws; the auto parts fabricator wants to buy steel or aluminum at a price that will ensure a production-end profit; the single mother or father of three young children wants the assurance that local schools are capable of meeting today’s and tomorrow’s education needs, that health care will be available and affordable, that the infrastructure of roads, power, water, and services is improving, not declining. Voters want to know their country has a robust military, and that our nation is respected and believed in the capitals of our allies and our enemies. On this latter point, I’m sure all voters wish the same of our leaders. 

Candidates for the House and Senate will be inspected, dissected, and, when appropriate, rejected, by a voting public more wired, more savvy and more in touch with the issues than any voter population before them. There will be those intractable candidates and voters who simply cannot let go of their ties to Trump, facts be damned, hoaxes abound. As a reporter, I would not waste a steno pad on their positions. Those voters are anomalies--outliers who did effect the 2016 outcome, but whose real power is diminishing in the overall electoral process; they don't represent the broader electorate which is coming around to that same opinion.

What I would recommend to my working press colleagues is to keep the question of voter relevance on the table. The vote...the one founding tool that has been shown to make a difference and speak loudest for the public interest...is sacrosanct. Let's beat that drum. 

Trump fears the informed vote with every fiber of his being. He knows an informed voter matters far more than one-note, co-opted candidates do, and it's important that we--the working press and those of us, once trained and raised in journalism and who continue to express our views on social media platforms, align ourselves with, and respect, the voters and their every-day interests. 

The news media’s attention over the next three-and-a-half months must remain focused on the core principle of election success: Understanding the head, heart, and wallet of the electorate. My father used to tell me, "If someone says something is important to them, it is, in fact, important. If you want to work with them, you need to treat their issue as important to you, too."

We cannot, as journalists, let ourselves be misdirected by Trumpian attempts (intentional or unintentional) to control the national dialogue, trying to force us to spend precious time parsing his train of thought. He is a poor engineer of a wheel-less engine, but he has somehow convinced a number of Americans to get on board his rapidly disintegrating line of cars. 

As long as we can assure the rest of the public that the media stands foursquare, resolutely, and uncompromisingly for the public’s interests, and as long as we cover fairly the campaigns of men and women who we know will make a difference in national governance, we will come out of the mid-term elections better prepared to take on the full force of 2020.