| Also for the record, a big hat tip has to go to Professor Grimes to taking up this call. She is completely independent of the Times Union and is not being paid for her work. She brings her expertise from the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Commincation and has shed important light on the inner workings of a major mainstream media establishment.
I began to contact Professor Grimes with my concerns that the primary in the 46th was being completely ignored when her column began nearly a month ago, around the time David Weiss and Charlie Voelker made the ballot to challenge Neil Breslin. As it stands, her commentary yesterday was the first article the Times Union published that mentioned David Weiss's candidacy in the body of the story. And Professor Grimes comes around to some of the same conclusions I have about what needs to start happening in the mainstream media:
All of that said, I think the Times Union and other news organizations would strengthen political coverage by slightly revising some traditional coverage calculations: A little less emphasis on early signs of competitiveness. A little more coverage earlier.
Just simple listings of early candidates can help voters stay engaged and meet readers' growing expectation of information on demand.
The best journalists can do, I think, is provide something like "proportional representation" of candidates in general coverage - an occasional piece that gives the alternative candidates a voice in the public discourse, even if not a loud one.
Emphasis added.
Her conclusions come about form some sound investigation into the inquiries I had sent via e-mail. Why isn't this race being covered? Who is making the decision to keep this news from the public? Why is it up to a blogger to force the press to report what's actually going on? Her insight into the way the Times Union reports political information is very telling. In my view, it's proof of a cynical and self-important world of insulated journalists who prefer to decide elections for the people, instead of providing them with the information they need to decide for themselves.
The kind and amount of coverage reflects several factors: Journalists' judgments on which races or candidates are most newsworthy. Conventional wisdom on when coverage is most useful or interesting to the public. And the limited resources of reporters, space and time.
In deciding comparative newsworthiness, journalists calculate from a rough formula:
Is the race competitive? How strong is the incumbent? Any scandals brewing? Constituents happy or unhappy? Last victory margin? For the challenger, any fundraising success? How many petitions? Well-known outside of politics too? Drawing any kind of crowd at events? Any other signs of voter interest or party support?
These are choice words. To begin with, knowledge of what the choices at the ballot ahead of time seems useful to the public to me. With name recognition being one of the biggest costs of campaigns, and with too much money in politics in general, journalists could serve as part of the solution to the problem of spending so much money on name recognition, simply by covering the fact that the candidate is running.
The specific criteria for coverage posed as questions are all easily answered by someone who has been paying attention to the race on the ground: The challenge that David Weiss is mounting against Senator Breslin certainly is competitive. As far as petitions filed, David Weiss filed well over 1,000 signatures witnessed by himself, more than most of the candidates running for Congress collected on their own, combined. And Weiss is very well-known outside of politics as an environmental activist and organizer, having drawn crowds of up to half a million people before, co-founded, built up, and organized large activists organization, etc., etc., check his website for the whole story.
Somehow, though, all that did not fit into the journalistic calculations of the Times Union, as choice quotes provided by Professor Grimes from TU editorial staff reveals:
Jay Jochnowitz, until recently the Times Union's state editor and now editorial page editor, sums up the basic calculation: "I'd say it comes down to how we answer the question, 'Is it a real race?'"
Adds Rick Karlin, capitol bureau reporter: "If an incumbent is well-entrenched, such as a lawmaker in a heavily Democratic town like Albany or a rural Republican area, the reality is there may not be a strong challenger. The readers are better served by covering races where the outcome may actually change the dynamics in government."
To answer Jochnowitz's question: Yes, it is a real race. And any journalist who did a check on David Weiss would have come to the same conclusion. And in rebuttal to Karlin: there is no doubt that a Weiss victory in the primary will change the dynamics in Albany County government dramatically if it comes to pass, as he will have taken out one of the three brothers who have held county-wide political power for over a decade. Even considered from the other angle of possibility - that Breslin recieves overwhelming support and confirms his power as his challengers suffer embarassing defeats - should still warrant coverage.
This especially hits hard when one considers the coverage of other area races and candidates. We've had coverage of petition fights for State Committee in Albany County for Pete's sake! Why not coverage on a much larger State Senate race? There are all sorts of Senate and Assembly Races being given time in the paper. And when the many former Congressional candidates announced in the 21st, including obviously weak or downright loony dropped-out candidates Arthur Welser, Joe Sullivan and John Aretakis, these candidates got at least a headline and photograph in the Capital Region section when they announced. David Weiss and Charlie Voelker, however, were given nothing.
Furthermore, challenges to the Breslins have been widely covered before. This primary is practically a piece of a developing and continuing story as to an internal divide in the Albany County Democratic party. On that note, it must be remembered that the Democratic Primary for the 21st Congressional District is going on, and the 46th State Senate District is right there in the middle of it, with the largest population of contested voters in that district. Consider this "conventional" wisdom:
For politicos and journalists both, conventional wisdom about voters shapes many decisions. Primaries, for example, typically have a low voter-turnout. So, in anticipation of low interest, primaries usually get scant coverage.
To this, I have no choice but say that the editors at the Times Union and Professor Grimes are wrong. Incredibly wrong. To not make the connection that there will be much higher than average turn out on primary day because of the high-profile Congressional primary and, as such, turn out for the primary for the 46th State Senate district will be very high as well shows either a thorough lack of understanding and respect for electoral politics...or a calculated move that understands entirely too well. If this were 2006, then yes, turnout would be incredibly low. But the fact is that the voters in Albany County are being courted heavily to turn out, and they most likely will for the Congressional vote...and they will be faced with the choice of Neil Breslin, Charlie Voelker, or David Weiss for State Senate at the same time. With that about to happen and with change in the air in 2008, any challenger to Breslin has a better shot, and the dynamics of the race are such that coverage of that challenger is warranted.
Furthermore, it seems cynical to me for the papers to decide that low turnout is the reason to not report a race. Why not try and generate some interest in a story? Doesn't that sell papers? Doesn't that foster increased participation that is better for our democracy no matter what? The lack of civic duty inherent in these mainstream media outlets is disturbing. That's the big excuse in Professor Grimes commentary:
It is the candidate's responsibility, after all, to knock on doors, shake hands at factory gates, kiss babies at the state fair, inspire volunteers to help them campaign and to raise their profiles high enough to warrant more coverage.
If only Professor Grimes and the editorial board at the Times Union actually had their ear to the ground, they'd be hearing an abundance of knocking on doors. That's David Weiss's entire 35-years of experience: grassroots activism, and a national reputation for it. As a Weiss for Senate volunteer, I've hit a couple hundred houses myself. One of the things I hear almost all the time is that the voter thinks David Weiss is another candidate for Congress; that should be a good indicator as to how competitive a race he is running.
And that's the whole story and that's what is still being ignored by the major mainstream media outlets. Professor Grimes wonders, accurately I believe, that the lack of coverage based on the worn-out journalistic conventional wisdom is perhaps a "self-fullfilling prophecy" that itself leads to poorer choices and more poorly informed electorate. But I have to thank her for lifting the veil as to how the Times Union makes its decisions about what you should know...and what they think you shouldn't know.
In the end, what happened and what is provable is this: the actions of one politically active young person, a blogger, has resulted in a major media outlet being forced to recognize that it is not giving its readers the whole story. It is proof positive that one of the things that is changing in this country is the media-cycle. The blogs are now the frontlines for information, put out there by people who care as citizen advocates; the mainstream media ignores this at their own peril. More people now get their political news from the Internet than they do the newspapers. I believe that the clinging to the outdated and, yes, unfair, conventional wisdom might have something to do with that decline.
Well, it doesn't hurt me if the Times Union loses market share as an information source since it's their own fault they aren't providing the information...unless they have to because a blogger has been on the beat. For this blogger, the reason for equal coverage in politics is self-evident and the time to implement it has always been right now. For better or for worse, the place it's happening first is here on the blogs, not on the newsstands. Save your fifty cents and stay tuned. |
