By Matthew N. Klink
Does the news media push an ideological agenda? Absolutely. Should this answer surprise anyone? Not unless you don't watch television, read newspapers or surf the Internet.
Leaving aside questions about the media's ideological focus for a moment, it's important to keep in mind that the press needs “torque,” or conflict to sell newspapers, attract listeners or draw eyeballs. Look no further than the daily newspaper or the nightly news for evidence that the news media loves conflict. Conflict sells. It attracts greater advertising revenues to media outlets – which is, after all, a primary reason why these businesses exist.
Politics and the players involved in politics provide the perfect battlefield for this conflict to unfold because when political conflicts occur, they are rarely neat and this sloppiness makes for good theater – again, attracting an audience, resulting in more eyeballs on advertisements.
For those of us in the political consulting industry, anticipating and managing this conflict is hopefully factored into our campaign plans. It's ultimately what helps us frame issues, assist candidates and, ultimately drive coverage to the benefit our campaign or to the detriment of our opponent's.
By and large, the mainstream media has a disadvantage when covering politics. The press does the best it can with limited resources and largely inexperienced reporters in its coverage of campaigns. While some reporters truly understand the ins and outs of political campaigns, the majority – particularly those at local news stations or community newspapers – has no idea what goes into an election. These reporters are more interested in the horse-race aspect of politics: who leads, who trails and by how much. It's easy to report and it's sexy – again, conflict sells. Who can blame them?
This said, the news media does play an important role in political campaigns. From the public's perspective, without the press voters would be left with only campaign mailers, 30-second commercials and canned political speeches – focusing only on issues or character traits an individual campaign prefers to discuss – to learn about the candidates. For candidates and consultants, editorials and articles provide source credibility, which we can use in our paid media campaigns.
The press is at its best when a reporter forces candidates to react to charges made by the opposing campaign or other outside groups, or when a reporter raises an issue that, when exposed to the light of day, becomes more important in determining a campaign's success or failure than it was before it was raised.
For example, in the Democrat presidential primary, the news media has rightfully focused on Hilary Clinton's support for the Iraq War and her refusal to admit making a mistake when she voted to give President Bush authority to invade Iraq. Mrs. Clinton's intransigence has created significant contrast and controversy in a crowded Democrat election field. All other candidates, clamoring for support of uber-left radicals like Code Pink and Moveon.org, have admitted their vote was a mistake, with the exception of Barack Obama who wasn't in the U.S. Senate when the vote occurred and, consequently, and has no mistake to admit making.
What is problematic is when the news media targets a specific candidate not only for the purpose of attracting readers and viewers, but also to push a specific political agenda. It is here that the press over-steps its bounds and leaves the realm of being an important information source and instead becomes more of an influence peddler – almost a surrogate message delivery system for or against a candidate – in a political campaign rather than a “neutral” information provider in a political campaign.
Look no further than the Los Angeles Times' controversial actions during the California recall election. Toward the end of Arnold Schwarzenegger's first gubernatorial election, the Los Angeles Times came out with a front-page story column about the then-actor's alleged sexual harassment in the distant past. Rumors bubbled during the campaign about potential indiscretions by mega-star Arnold Schwarzenegger, but the Times' appeared to “connect the dots” and “miraculously” did so a week before Election Day.
Fortunately for Schwarzenegger, the Times miscalculated. The “news” broke so late that much of the California electorate had already voted by absentee ballot. Equally important, the Times released the story so late that campaigns opposing Schwarzenegger didn't have time to use the story in any political advertisements.
Whether the press is biased makes for great barstool conversation…but it's impossible to resolve. Ultimately, what can be done if the news media blatantly slants its coverage for or against your candidate? If it benefits your candidate, sit back and enjoy! If it's against your candidate, the crass answer, there's not much you can do.
Clever campaigns will find alternate and equally effective methods to communicate with voters and not rely on the news media as a primary or even secondary information resource. The rapid expansion of social media makes the task at hand is much easier because candidates have significantly more opportunities to communicate directly with the electorate, almost entirely bypassing the news media. It is this rapid ability to communicate directly with the electorate that holds promise for the future and is making the news media less and less influential.
Matt Klink is a Principal & Executive Vice President of Cerrell Associates, Inc.,
a Los Angeles,-based political consulting firm.
He can be reached at Click here to contact this Author.
