Exploiting America's News Attention Deficit Disorder

Political news junkies have had plenty to obsess over lately. Each of the last four weekdays have given us stories that, in less tumultuous times, might have dominated the news for days on end. On Thursday, there was the withdrawal of Harriet Miers from consideration for the Supreme Court. Then, on Friday, there was more bad news for the Bush administration, in the form of Scooter Libby's indictment. Monday, Libby was wiped from the front pages in favor of Samuel Alito, who had been nominated for Miers' spot on the Court. And then yesterday brought a surprise: The Democrats' move to force a closed door session in the Senate – and bring the media's focus back to the Bush administration's justification for war.

With all this activity, it's easy to forget the Miers resignation and Libby indictment took place less than a week ago. Both stories have faded in our memories with each day's new front-pager. And that's no accident, of course. The Bush administration wanted to get the bad news out of the way last week, and make a comeback this week. But the Democrats threw a wrench in that plan. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote today that Democrats had engaged in "a brazen effort to change the subject from the Supreme Court confirmation of Sam Alito, which Republicans prefer, to war deaths and Scooter Libby's indictment."

He even got a money quote from a Democratic leadership aide: "Alito had his day. We're going back to our story."

And the media followed. The Bush administration wanted the news yesterday to be about the president's plan for fighting bird flu, which Bush outlined in a speech at the National Institute of Health. But two of the three nightly newscasts led instead with the battle in the Senate – or, um, showdown. The cable networks and newspapers also covered the story extensively, which meant less emphasis on Alito and the president's plan. "We were going to lead with bird flu yesterday," says Bob Schieffer, anchor of the CBS "Evening News." "We thought it was something people needed to know about." But instead the lead story became the Senate. The top story on CBSNews.com mentioned "the possible misuse of intelligence data by the Bush administration" in the subhead. It's safe to say Democrats were pleased.

But what about journalists? Over the last few days, it's been hard for even casual observers not to notice the degree to which politicians time their actions and announcements in order to impact the news cycle. You can argue about the degree to which yesterday's Democratic action was a stunt – it did, after all, result in a deal, although Reid couldn't force what he said he wanted, a full investigation into the intelligence that led to the Iraq war – but you would have to be naïve not to take into account the timing. In Slate, John Dickerson minced no words: "Reid was trying to thwart White House efforts to move past the Scooter Libby indictment."

Of course, it wasn't the White House that would have been doing the moving. It was the press. The developments over the past few days have brought into focus a number of questions that underlie journalism, particularly that of the political variety. To what degree should people in the press try to keep important stories on the front burner when politicians try to bury them? How should journalists respond to politicians' efforts to manipulate the news cycle? And who, exactly, should be setting the news agenda in the first place?

"Politicians have an agenda," says Schieffer. "We don't. We're trying to cover the news – to get at the truth, as corny as that sounds." The "Evening News" led with the Senate last evening because "we thought it showed just so bad the partisanship had become." Schieffer believes yesterday's fireworks were newsworthy primarily because they provided a window into how difficult it would be to get anything done in Washington over the next year – not because they shifted people's focus back to the Iraq war.

I asked him how, as a journalist, he pushed back against politicians' efforts to manipulate the media, as when they release negative news on a Friday afternoon so that it escapes scrutiny. "The only way we can push back is to let people know that something dropped on a Friday afternoon," he says.

Janet Leissner, CBS News Washington bureau chief, makes a similar point. "We strive not to be used as tools, but to take information and put it into context," she says. "We're not stenographers. They have people at the White House who's job it is to do that. We have to use critical thinking in terms of what we should focus on."

As an example, she points to the coverage of the White House's bad week. "Journalists were savvy enough to say they were trying to get the bad news out of the way in a clump. We weren't shy about pointing they wanted to have the Miers withdrawal Thursday, Libby Friday, and then turn the corner on Monday. I think everybody pointed that out," she says.

One thing journalists have going for them is the fact that politicians' attempts at media manipulation have natural limits. Miers may be a closed chapter, but her botched nomination can never be completely erased from memory. And Libby, Alito, and the possible misuse of intelligence data in the run-up to the war are stories too large for reporters to simply cease reporting on and investigating. Politicians may get those stories off the front pages for a day or two with a well timed announcement or high profile stunt, but that doesn't mean they won't eventually come back with a vengeance.