This has been a pet issue of mine for years. Local television loves the money that political campaigns spend but they are not interested in covering the races.

Part of the reason is most reporters don't cover politics on a regular basis, so the are trying to figure issues out on the fly, so idea one, TV should follow newspaper's lead and assign reporters to covering politics. This will improve the quality of coverage because as campaigns develop a relationship with the reporter opportunities for news stories will develop.

Also we must understand how television works, an assignment editor decides in the morning what is news for that day. Unless they are covering breaking news, most decisions about what is going to be on the news that evening are made by 10:00AM. This is why newspapers are still crucial, assignment editors are influenced by what they read that morning.

Idea number two, cover the broad issues, and let the internet and newspapers cover the details, during the recent campaign two days before the election a business reporter did a story that both the Saxton and Kulongoski media buyers were not local. Now this might be interesting, but I am not sure any voter made up their mind based on this tidbit. With the significant differences between the two candidates perhaps a story on some other issue might have made more sense. Television's power is its reach and it should look for issues that reach the broadest audience, not insider issues like who a candidate hires as their media buyer.

Idea number three, this is for the campaigns, think about creating television friendly stories. This is a visual medium and it is up to campaigns to think about what the are doing will look like on television. Also television deadlines are different than print deadlines, so you have to take this into consideration.

Idea number four, let's look for other forms of political discourse besides the set piece debate. Television stations want to do the standard debate (in the Governor's campaign we had 35 media sponsored debate requests), but in general these are dull and uninformative, so let's look for alternatives. How about making candidates debate policy experts? Or use a more Socratic format that takes on an issue and forces the candidate to show his or her decision making process. I pitched both of these ideas, during the Governor’s race, but they got little traction.

Races like those for Governor or U.S. Senate usually get some degree of television coverage. It is the down ticket races that could really benefit from increased coverage. Television news will continue to ignore politics until they are pressured to cover campaigns. The main reason is cost, to cover politics you need dedicated beat reporters, you need bright, talented editors and you need to be creative; all of these things cost money. It is much easier to listen to the police scanner.

The main reason is cost, to cover politics you need dedicated beat reporters, you need bright, talented editors and you need to be creative; all of these things cost money.

Seems to me they should use at least 10% of the money they bring in from political ads on political coverage. If it's true that Portland's stations brought in $27 million in 2004, why shouldn't they dedicate $2.7 million to covering politics? Even spreading that over two years and four stations, that's still $337,500 per year per station. Plenty for a full time producer with a budget.

September 2006 fantasy article.

Dateline: Ted Ferrioli's ass.

All over the state, hitherto unknown Republicans are running for office using the "65% solution" as a primary campaign plank, and in many cases touting it as an original idea of the individual candidates.

Turns out that Ted, who also funnels huge sums of money from lobbyists through his own fundraising organization to these original thinkers, also provided them with this issue.

The 65% solution was originally created by right wing warrior Tim Mooney of Arizona. Mr. Mooney, who is funded almost exclusively by organizations that wish to entirely destroy public education, admits in a PDF on his website that there is NO evidence that this scam works, but argues that it's a good way to get publicity for vouchers and charter schools.

Why then, is Senator Ferrioli pushing this steaming pile of shit, and why do none of his innovative candidates even know how to access the website?

Ferrioli and his byblows should at least come out and admit that their central goal is the destruction of public education in Oregon.

Let's have a debate about that.

OK, OK. There are undoubtedly about a million Oregonians who could write a better story, but I'd definitely find it more interesting than most of what passes for Oregon news.

My suggestion would be for TV stations to treat their audiences with respect. Rather than imagining that we only pine for images of Britney's nethers, instead think that we would consume hard news, competently reported (for the two are not mutually exclusive). The best example? 60 Minutes, consistently the best news show on TV, and also one of the consistently most popular. That show's popularity ultimately spawned a raft of copycats in the 90s, but unlike 60 Minutes, Dateline and others lost their nerve and refuse to show serious stories. They adopted the form, but not the content.

In local news, if a station committed to producing one long segment a week (say 6 or seven minutes of an evening broadcast) to an in-depth local story in the mode of 60 Minutes, my guess is that it would become a ratings bonanza.

Imagine: a story about the Portland tram, revealing all the factors that made it such a troublesome issue; a report on the players behind various petitions on a ballot and what they stand to gain; a look at modern logging techniques and the logging industry, and the challenges and opportunities facing loggers in the coming years. The list goes on and on.

Begin to imagine that viewers have the interest in subtle stories that frame our policy discussions, and lo and behold, you'll find an audience. Promote the newest show your affiliate's network is broadcasting as disguised news, and you'll see ratings continue to decline, right along with the public's opinion of media.