Paul Krugman's column on October 14th was one of the most scathing indictments of political reporters I've ever read. It's so damning in its criticism to deserve a more critical look. In it, the admittedly left-of-center columnist accuses the media of:
All accusations deserve a reasonable critique:
Political Bias: The notion that political reporters skewed their portrayal of Gore is unfair; after all, the media weren't to blame when Gore repeatedly sighed during a nationally televised debate with Bush, showing a condesceding air that was unlikely to endear hmself with the American public. Furthermore, Bush, despite all his flaws as a administrator and leader, has proven himself quite skilled as a campaigner, having won both presidential campaigns as well as two terms as Texas governor (despite some less-than-sparkling credentials). By asserting that the political reporter's dislike for Gore gave Bush the victory, Krugman displays a blatant disrespect for the American voter's judgment.
Pandering to the Public: On this point, Krugman is correct -- the media do place entirely too much emphasis on personal characteristics over "just the facts." But, let's be honest here -- as much as we want to go back to the woebegone era when all we cared about were "the issues," such a time will never return to the modern American political process. As such, to complain about Bush being better at presenting himself in "up close and personal" interviews is akin to complaining about Republicans being able draw more money from their contributors: well-meaning, possibly accurate, but completely impractical under the rules of the current system. Again, let's not blame political reporters for Gore's failure to endear himself to the American public. If the public really wanted an emphasis upon "the issues," more people would be watching PBS instead of Fox News. As such, Krugman continues to "blame the messenger" instead of those who are demanding such a message, the American public.
Unethical Careerism: This is Krugman's most offensive charge -- after all, he impugns the integrity of the entire reporting class, accusing them of valuing their personal ambition more so than providing the public with the facts. While I think Krugman needs to support such an explosive accusation with some hard evidence, if true, it's a problem that needs to be addressed by all of the news organizations. Really, besides fabrication and possibly plagiarism, is there a more damning criticism of the media than such a charge?
TG (not verified) @ October 19, 2005 - 3:47pm
Krugman is an economist. He should write about economics.
»