
Feature, Musings —04.06.2025 10:06 AM
—Sunday campaign down day: advice about media and politicos
It’s another campaign down day! The parties get a break, and so do I (well, except for the Kinsellacast, coming soon). So, here instead, is more wisdom from my book The War Room – on an issue that has been rather hot, lately: relations with the political media covering Election 2025.
Journalists who write about politics – and I write this as someone who has been one, and as someone who has even taught unsuspecting youngsters how to be one — are regarded by most politicians as duplicitous, lazy, amoral confidence artists. They are seen as cynical, soulless sophists, to a one. If Jesus Christ himself were one of their confidential sources, they would burn him in a New York minute, just to get the scoop on his resurrection.
That’s not what I think, having been a journalist. But when the majority of political consultants, regardless of party affiliation, age, race, gender, or place of origin, are asked about reporters, their eyes will start to look for the nearest exit. When pressed, they will mumble something about how they have plenty of friends who are political journalists, or that there are some reporters who they trust, or that they understand that the media are “professionals” and have a job to do. But put away the tape recorder, get a few beers into them, and the truth will eventually tumble out. Political consultants (and, usually, the politicians they represent) hate political journalists. Hate ’em.
In the past couple of decades or so, relationships between politicos and hacks – never easy to begin with — have deteriorated rather dramatically. Statistics do not lie, generally, and the statistics tell the story. In a Brookings Institution study called Campaign Warriors: Political Consultants in Elections, American University professors James Thurber and Candice Nelson reveal the results of a survey that was, in part, about consultants and reporters. Thurber and Nelson conducted two hundred in-depth interviews in 1997 and 1998 with the principals in a number of major U.S. political consulting firms, and found that political activists are “full of negativity” about the news media.
Nearly 70 percent of political consultants, for example, rated the job that journalists do as “poor” or no better than “fair.” It did not matter what party the consultants were affiliated with, the vast majority regarded reporters as stinkers. Only 1.5 percent described journalists as”excellent.” (This works out to be approximately three of the two hundred consultants interviewed, in case you are wondering.)
The older the consultant, the worse his or her views of the fourth estate. Wrote Thurber and Nelson, “Political consultants who have been around longer develop more concrete attitudes toward the media. The experiences or run-ins they have had over the years may have reinforced their beliefs about journalists.” Reporters and editors in search of a silver lining in this statistical storm cloud may point to one statistic: Thurber and Nelson found that only 30 percent of the consultants polled had actually worked for a media organization. Ipso facto, most political flak catchers cannot be expected to understand the doings of political hacks.
But not so fast. Employing awkward sentence structure, the pair of academics note, “Not only were the consultants who had worked in the media not more likely to rate political journalists more favourably, they actually gave more negative ratings. Seventy-five per cent of those consultants who had worked for the news media, compared to 65 per cent of all other consultants, rated today’s political journalists as fair or poor?” Of all the consultants consulted, 50 per cent said journalists were, in fact, getting worse.
Concluded Thurber and Nelson, “Considering the evidence … the results are striking. Political consultants dislike the media … [They] do not like political journalists.” Political consultants must, however, accept one immutable law of nature. They are bound together with media people in perpetuity, metaphorical groom and bride in a diabolic marriage without end. One cannot properly exist without the other. Political consultants need reporters to tell nice stories about the candidates they wish to elect and, naturally enough, unpleasant stories about their electoral opponents. Political reporters, meanwhile, need consultants to provide them with the stories that sell newspapers and boost ratings.
Disliking journalists is a waste of time, in my opinion. I think most journalists are professionals, and – most of the time — they do a very good job. You need them, and they need you.
Warren,
I don’t give a shit what political consultants think. As for the fourth estate, well, today’s journalism is all about political bias of the news organization and constantly spoon-feeding that agenda to the public. Especially in television and radio but also in the papers where the deliberate corporate or institutional bias is less pronounced. A driven agenda floats their boats today. On an individual level, the non-voting Cronkite era is long gone. Today’s presenters not only delivery the news but also their personal editorials. That was almost unheard of in the good old days but now is regrettably commonplace. Every journalist has at least a personal opinion or confirmed bias in the way they address the news. In an election, they will make token efforts to appear impartial or unbiased but that is nothing more than a facade and window-dressing. The journalists I know all have at least a personal political bias and they put it forward on election day. Imagine that.
The world Warren has written about no longer exists. The study he quotes was conducted almost 30 years ago. The media landscape has completely changed. The legacy media is dead, or dying. Here in Canada, they need government handouts to stay in business. Nobody reads newspapers anymore. Virtually everybody gets their information from TV or social media. Additionally, the idea that a reporter’s professionalism requires them to be objective is no longer relevant. In order to have a profile on social media, and a following, they need to pick a lane and become a proselytizer. I don’t like this world, but it’s the one we now live in. When the bottom dropped out of the legacy media’s ability to fund itself (all the advertising money went somewhere else), most reporters lost their jobs. The ones that remained have had to develope an online following to justify their existence.
It’s from a book that came out in 1997. Don’t get pissy.
Point taken.
It is not even arguable anymore:
“In recent years I’ve struggled to answer that question. Concerned by the lack of viewpoint diversity, I looked at voter registration for our newsroom. In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans. None.
So on May 3, 2021, I presented the findings at an all-hands editorial staff meeting. When I suggested we had a diversity problem with a score of 87 Democrats and zero Republicans, the response wasn’t hostile. It was worse. It was met with profound indifference. I got a few messages from surprised, curious colleagues. But the messages were of the “oh wow, that’s weird” variety, as if the lopsided tally was a random anomaly rather than a critical failure of our diversity North Star.”
https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust?hide_intro_popup=true
Martin,
Most of us live only in our own echo chamber. You are a rare one who is truly well read across the political spectrum in two countries! Impressive. Honestly and to my discredit I really don’t give a shit what the other side thinks, especially in the Trump Banana Republic.
And don’t get me wrong, down to my bones, I’m just as biased and agenda driven as they are.
The more I hear (and read) about this election, the more I am reminded of something the great H. L. Mencken said: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard”.