How The Iowa-caucus Media Blew It
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Like a lot of you, I've been riveted to the proceedings in Iowa this week. Thanks to the wonderful world of television news, I have learned so much vital stuff about Mike Huckabee's homespun charms, the secret plans of Hillary Clinton's better half to conquer the world and Barack Obama's family ties.
Now I know how the candidates feel about everything -- except the issues.
Unfortunately, I have no idea how any of the candidates would resolve the situation in Iraq and the corresponding crisis-to-be in Iran, preserve the environment, provide health care to needy Americans, solve the Social Security debacle, fix the economy or boost the stock market.
Heck, I don't even know which candidate is tightest with Bono!
The wrong focus
Once again, TV has taken the easy way out by focusing on the candidates' personalities instead of hammering on the issues. The pundits keep telling us that this is the most interesting, wide-open and important election of modern times, yet we keep getting the same old insufficient coverage.
The news executives must figure that the electorate is so unambitious (and plain dumb) in its viewing habits that it will accept any old drivel on the tube. The media are probably jaded and already burned out from the never-ending presidential campaigns of the 106 candidates (not to mention New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is poised to pounce). Because the media are bored, they reckon that the public must feel the same way, right?
Well, if that's true, the news honchos have committed the biggest miscalculation of character since Rudy Giuliani recommended his buddy Bernie Kerik as a swell choice to run the Department of Homeland Security.
In fact, when you scrutinize the coverage of Huckabee and Fred Thompson (remember him?), you can see clearly where the media went wrong this year. Thanks largely to the celebrity image that reporters helped craft for Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor transformed himself from Jed Clampett to the second coming of Tim Robbins' slick "Bob Roberts" almost overnight. Instead of questioning his outrageous statements, the media preferred to gush over which celebrity he was hanging out with (see photo).
Forget about how this remarkable political story came out in the first place. I'd settle for knowing what Huckabee stands for. Beats me -- but then again, I've been watching TV news all week. Don't blame me.
As for Thompson, news shows tripped over themselves to trumpet his entry into the race. Little did anyone know that he'd fade so quickly as a serious contender. When he first joined the fray, we in the media treated him as seriously as anyone else. We would have been shrewder if we had discussed his attitudes on the issues instead of harping on his fame as a star on NBC's "Law and Order." Unfortunately for Thompson, his weird idiosyncrasies on the stump were exposed, outweighing his Hollywood cred.
Pointless polls
The media also spent way too much time reporting on the vicissitudes of the many polls that were conducted in Iowa.
They admit that the polls are unscientific at the end of the day. Following the polls on a day-to-day basis seems about as pointless as tracking the Major League Baseball standings or the Dow Jones Industrial Average, both of which usually change so little from one day to the next.
Barry Sussman, one of the principal editors behind the Washington Post's Watergate coverage, criticized the Des Moines Register's poll of Democratic candidates in the caucus. He wrote this week in NiemanWatchdog.org:
"The poll focused only on the horse race and on vague bumper-sticker voter motivations, like desire for change or unity. That's a disservice. In a 33-paragraph story and in sidebar charts, the number-one issue for many Democrats, Iraq, was never mentioned. Not once. This seems standard procedure for the Register; earlier on its editr banned discussion of Iraq in televised Democratic and Republican candidate debates she moderated.
"Did the poll questionnaire even try to determine what bearing Iraq or any other issues might have on people's choices? Not as far as I can tell -- but I can't rule that out, either, as there was next to no transparency in the paper's report."
Don't despair, though. Remember, the New Hampshire primary is right around the corner. I can't wait.
: What did the TV media do right and wrong in their coverage of the Iowa caucus?
: "How not to conduct a presidential poll" by Barry Sussman (Nieman Watchdog, Jan. 2) .
to about the "60 Minutes" interview with Roger Clemens, which will air Sunday night:
"Very sad -- since when do subjects (or their representatives?) of '60 Minutes' pieces pick who will interview/profile them? I've always enjoyed the program but it just lost a LOT of credibility with me after reading about upcoming interview, or at least respect for Mike Wallace."
-- Michael Moles
"Isn't anyone innocent until proven guilty? Even hardened criminals who are ratted on by someone in prison are given the benefit of the fact that the rat is only trying to cover their own..."
-- Jack Powell
"Your questions to Clemens look pretty softball to me. What about these questions? 1. Roger, I'm sure you will be more than glad to sue the Mitchell report and McNamee and take a polygraph test, won't you? 2. Roger, will you agree to be questioned under oath to clear your name? A lawsuit, testifying under oath and a polygraph test would be the only items that would call Roger's mean-spirited bluff and clear him. If he's really innocent, he would be glad to do this to clear his name. If Roger is lying, he wouldn't come near a polygraph machine nor would he allow himself to be questioned under oath."
-- John Moss
Media Web appears on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Feel free to send email to .
By Jon Friedman