I wonder if all reporters connect polling and policy positioning in such a direct way.

Reporters are such astonishing cynics. Most can't imagine that anyone actually stands for anything. Partly, it comes from the experience of doing their job - after all, "principled public servant" isn't a story, while "hypocritical hack" is always a story.

It's also part of their journalistic DNA. After all, reporters are trained to leave their personal views at the newsroom door. They're able to do the "on the one hand, on the other hand" thing so smoothly, that a principled stand doesn't compute for them.

But mostly, it's a vicious cycle. If the horse-race is the only thing you care about, then it's no surprise that the mindset you bring to policy pronouncements is that they must be "designed" to move the horse-race numbers.

Now, to be sure, there's always an element of horse-race in every policy announcement. After all, would anyone be talking about health care or immigration if the American people didn't say it was their #1 domestic issue? Probably a few; but not many.

But that still doesn't mean that people aren't coming to their policy positions honestly.

I was driving John Edwards in Portland last summer, when a local journalist (who shall remain nameless) was interviewing him in the backseat. He was incredulous that Edwards was going to make poverty a central issue of his campaign. He kept asking questions that were centered on his skepticism that it could be a winning issue ("Has anyone ever... Do you really think..."). When Edwards kept insisting that it was just really important to him and really important to this country, the journalist just couldn't compute. He was baffled by the whole thing.

To me, it was a classic lesson about the cynicism of the mainstream press. Policy proposals aren't arrived at honestly, and pushed by people who believe in them. They're just "positions" designed to "move" the "numbers."

Oh, come on Kari, tell us what you really think.

but you're leaving out a big part of the story if you don't explain why a candidate has arrived at a certain stance. Almost always, the horse race is involved in it.

Maybe it's his shorthand for the general idea that you can't instantly sell stuff that doesn't poll well, so unless a candidate hold a position that's already known to the public, polling and comparisons come into play;

or maybe they're just that ignorant. Cynicism by itself isn't necessarily unhealthy, but couple that with willful ignorance and it does a huge disservice to the voters.

Inside the bubble, most of us are hyper informed on a lot of topics, but having followed the national press for the past several years, I'd say that a lot of them are less informed than a lot of us are.

And yeah, we all love a horse race but knowing that, is it the case that these guys lack the skill to present the actual issues in a ways that hold the public attention?

I think that we can safely say that Mr. Mapes doesn't consider it to be worth the effort. The horse racing story writes itself. The health care story requires both research and packaging skill if it is to be as compelling as the horse race story.

Which one will they go with? Now we're back to cynicism.

Mapes is just turning content choice on its head, saying they can't do good journalism because no one wants it. It's much like TV producers explaining that their programs have so much violence because that's all people will watch. Apparently, the networks and the news departments and the economics of television and media have NOT changed in the last 20 years, but the attitudes and sensibilities of people HAVE.

Yeah, right, Jeff.

Pat's got it mostly right, I think:

I think that we can safely say that Mr. Mapes doesn't consider it to be worth the effort. The horse racing story writes itself. The health care story requires both research and packaging skill if it is to be as compelling as the horse race story.

I wouldn't call him clueless. He's a smart guy. Just more skeptical than necessary.

a different approach would be to ask what the public would watch/read if it was available. if the local and network news programs actually covered issues, and in depth, would people watch? how much coverage of FISA, for example, is enough? if NBC did a 5-minute piece on the real guts of FISA, would their audience sit through it?

part of the cynicism is about that: the audience. yes, they are trained to expect shallow and inane. but throughout history, most humans have wanted spectacle, reassurance, fun, etc. this is nothing new. to think that if the news presented "real" news would change things -- i'm among the cynics on that.

i actually think we have more people being more informed and more critical than ever before. i doubt we've had this many well-informed citizens ever. the internet has allowed so many people to learn and think for themselves, and then to join with others. but it's new, and we all make mistakes, and it's such a huge change that we have very little idea where all this is going.

i think it's quite possible that at the end of this century, we will be doing a much better job of knowing the issues and picking candidates based on that. of course, the candidates will learn new ways to help themselves, and hurt their opponents, but as we continue to turn information into knowledge, and then into wisdom, i think we have as much cause for hope as despair.

unfortunately that doesn't get us thru 2008 without the realization that a lot of stupid, ill-informed people are going to pick some really bad people for public office -- and maybe some good ones as well.

Scott's right. It's not entirely the fault of the individual reporter. They have editors and publishers to answer to.

I have a lot of respect for Jeff Mapes. He's definitely one of the best political reporters in the state. But that's a little like being the one-eyed man in the land of the blind. Sure, he's the king, but that's not saying much.

I don't blame Jeff Mapes for the staffing and budget choices of the Oregonian that come out of their broad editorial choices about what matters to Oregonians.

Seriously - one reporter in D.C. covering the congressional delegation and all the interactions between federal agencies and our state? Really? Other than what Jeff Kosseff writes, we get mostly wire service stuff with a single graf for Oregon-context jammed into the middle.

What's even more baffling is when they drop a seemingly juicy and controversial horse-race story.

For example, when Jeff Merkley xeroxed several thousand copies of Gordon Smith's franked Portland mailer and mailed 'em to Republicans in Eastern Oregon.

It was an audacious stunt, and it begged the question - did Gordon Smith's franked mailer violate the law and use taxpayer dollars for campaign purposes - but nobody covered it.

(Full disclosure: Once again, I built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.)

For example, when Jeff Merkley xeroxed several thousand copies of Gordon Smith's franked Portland mailer and mailed 'em to Republicans in Eastern Oregon. It was an audacious stunt, and it begged the question - did Gordon Smith's franked mailer violate the law and use taxpayer dollars for campaign purposes - but nobody covered it.

By far...BY FAR the best moment of the Merkley campaign so far. Great stuff, and I would have even loved to see him get deserved play from the media on it. :)

This is interesting

A Pew Research poll from a couple months ago asked Americans "Would you like to see MORE coverage or LESS coverage of" six different things involving political campaigns.

Outright majorities said that they'd like to see MORE press coverage of the candidates positions on issues (77%), the candidate debates (57%), the sources of candidates campaign money (55%), the candidates personal backgrounds and experiences (55%) and candidates who are not frontrunners (55%).

The only question where those saying that they'd like to see LESS coverage garnered the most support of was... which candidate is leading in the latest poll (45%) - i.e., the horse race.

I wanted to say it but Miles got there first: reporting on anything but the horse race would require that reporters know something about the issues, be able to verify facts that are presented by the candidates, and -- heaven forfend -- point out when they're not being truthful (i.e. lying). That gets them yelled at by supporters, it gets their editors yelled at by supporters, etc. If they just cover the mechanics of who's ahead in the polls, and what the campaigns are saying about each other, and talk about electoral strategy, they don't ruffle nearly as many feathers.

And, of course, when they do try to address actual issues, unless they're willing to spend some energy actually reading stuff, they screw up in public. Look at the hole Joe Klein at TIME has dug himself after trusting Republicans to tell him what the skinny on the FISA bill is. Now his "reporting" has devolved to "I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right." And his editor says "That assumes there are errors."

Kevin A Pew Research poll ... [said] ...outright majorities said that they'd like to see MORE press coverage of the candidates positions on issues (77%), the candidate debates (57%), the sources of candidates campaign money (55%), the candidates personal backgrounds and experiences (55%) and candidates who are not frontrunners (55%).

I'm sure that's true. But back in the 1960s, a magazine research firm went door to door to find out what people read, stupid pap (I believe it was Cosmo) or Intellectual fare (the New Yorker, I think). The numbers were clear: pap was about 30%, intellectual fare was about 70%. Trouble was, that was exactly the opposite of what the circulation numbers of the two magazines were. Cosmo was outselling the intellectual magazine in the area two to one.

As cynical as reporters are about politicians, I'm twice as cynical about the public. People lie. Not only to pollsters, but to themselves. If issue oriented stories actually brought in viewers, that would be reflected in the ratings. It's not. Period.

What that poll really shows is that people want more substantive issues discussed on TV. They just don't want to watch it themselves.

That's why the horserace will always be what's covered, when anything political is covered at all.

Decyphering candidates real views by tracking their actions, votes, and honest comments made in unguarded moments is something difficult to square with deadlines, but something that is ideally suited for the blogosphere.

I think you point to the future of journalism. The problem with the blogosphere is its evanescence--we chart moment-by-moment happenings, but none (or very few) of us are paid to dig deeper.

But journalists actually are paid. It wouldn't take more than a couple days of serious research to put together dossiers on each candidate that you could use in reportage. I'm actually slowly trudging through the WaPo's online votes database to track the pattern of Gordon Smith's "maverick" voting (early finding: it's far more heterodox in years he's running for office--shockingly!). If I were a paid journalist, I could spend a few days doing that and then put together a more comprehensive story to judge his current positions against his historic positions. Only then would I feel comfortable making the judgment Mapes seems to begin with--that Smith's current views driven by polls. To do otherwise is to cheat a candidate.

I would love to see rich articles where the horse race numbers are given careful scrutiny in the context of campaign behavior--and the MSM has the time (and money) to do it. I don't.

I presume (but I don't know for sure) that Wyden chooses to spend his money on things like more staffers, or more statewide travel, rather than on franked mail.

But you see, more staff and more travel requires more personal work from the Senator himself. More franked mail doesn't. And as everyone in DC knows (but the Oregonian won't report to Oregonians), Gordon Smith is one lazy bastard.

Full disclosure: I manage Senator Wyden's campaign-funded policy website, but I speak only for myself.

I share Kari's view on why Wyden doesn't do franking.

And I have a hard time reconciling a Senator who consistently holds open forums, in person, in every county in Oregon with the characterization as having some sort of preference for ambiguity. Seems to me that if Wyden wanted ambiguity then he'd hide from his constituents like Smith does.

In terms of the Smith race, don't worry--there will be plenty of substantive issue pieces coming out between now and the election. So many, in fact, that you'll probably be sick of them by the end of next summer.

Care to make a wager? What should the terms be?

Here's some commentary on the subject from Mark Halperin in the New York Times: How ‘What It Takes’ Took Me Off Course

Scott, it depends on which paper you're talking about, but I agree--journalists do have busy schedules. But as a bit of pushback, I've been paid to write and I've blogged for free; it's funny how much difference getting paid makes. In fact, it's in the job description to do the work. You could blame it on the busy-ness of working on deadline, but that's what you get paid to do. To turnaround your argument a bit, I'd say that if you're going to earn a paycheck to write about politics, you should do the work you need to do to write a clear, full article. That's not an unreasonable expectation.

I am late to the debate on this one, but I have to weigh in. I think you all give Jeff too little respect on this issue. First of all, he understands the politics and issues better than any other journalist in the state. Second, he is, unfortunately, right. The horse race is what people want to talk about and read about. Most policy issue articles printed in any newspaper are deadly dull.

Second, the policy debates during primaries tend to be about ridiculous differences, none of which will survive the legislative process intact. During the general election when the differences are stark, the discussion of the issues is hard for "non-partisan" newspapers to make because of the insistence on the appearance of objectivity. You can't have a real discussion without a real debate and that does not take place in mainstream media. It takes place on forums like this and in journals of political thought that tend to have strong editorial (partisan) positions.

Lastly, it is about how much space the paper will dedicate to the election. Since any thing less than the Presidential race gets minor coverage, it is hard to fit in real discussions of the issues since the horse race is of interest. Again, that is why I go to other sources for the information on issues.

Do I wish it were different and that newspapers and TV networks actually provided more depth? Yes. Am I holding my breath? No. But I don't blame Jeff for this.

"First of all, he understands the politics and issues better than any other journalist in the state."

Peter Wong might beg to differ, or I might beg to differ for him...and I'm sure Mapes would agree that there are a couple of other top reporters like him around the state.

Most policy issue articles printed in any newspaper are deadly dull.

But they don't need to be. See Robert Krulwich.

There's often good reporting in the business sections (remember the french-fry series the O did?) and in the science sections - where reporters work hard to explain the fundamentals, put them in context, and explain the latest new developments.

But when it comes to policy, they throw all those lessons out the window. I don't know if it's because they feel a need to prove how they smart they are, or if it's because actually explaining how a policy would work gets 'em dangerously close to "taking a position", or if it's just because it's too easy to quote a couple of think-tank 'experts' and get dueling quotes from competing campaigns.... but whatever the reason, policy coverage DOES tend to be deadly dull. But it doesn't have to be.

Oh, and hey, Jeff Mapes -- welcome to BlueOregon. :)

(And nice to see that reporters aren't above blog-whoring. We all do it, even the best of us! To do it effectively, make your links live. Also, to get more comments on your blog - turn off moderation, and turn off the user registration stuff. At least until you get a critical mass going.)

Outside of political blogs like this one I have almost never heard people talking about who's doing the best in the polls or campaign strategy.

Coming after Thanksgiving, particularly, when I've rubbed up against family and friends of different credos than myself, I heard conversations about the Chavez Blvd. issue, crime, terrorism, Social Security, the economy, broadcast media violence, and a number of other issues related to a variety of policies that are in constant play at the local to national levels, but not one word about specific candidates, anything about debates, the ins and outs of their campaigns, or any other horse race info.

Wonderful example of responsible and irresponsible reporting on the same poll result in Iowa:

<h2>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28web-elder.html</h2>