The complicated problem of modern day press coverage is something that I have been more aware of in the recent years, assisted by a few online commentators who are particularly concerned with the issue. I have written before about the press effect, "the structures underlying the depictions that the public reads, hears, and watches," which was the subject of a book that I found particularly insightful. The discussion, posted on a Slate (which has press coverage by Jack Shafer) message board, notes that the press, like politics, is "the ultimate frame game."
The author of BTC News is also quite concerned with the state of modern mainstream press coverage and keeps abreast of matter a lot more than I do. This leads to a certain degree of despair, as expressed in a recent piece:
Instead, the press find themselves in a situation where they're playing catch-up on stories that have been so thoroughly muddied by the time anyone gets around to "serious" coverage that few people take that coverage seriously. A story that could have been cleared up in a week from its inception now keeps rolling on and on because the frickin' press didn't do their jobs.
Her discussion references two interesting articles that center on the subpar coverage of President Bush's guard duty and the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. A major problem is that the press takes so long to cover these stories, which plays into the hands of those who can best control the media coverage. As one of the articles noted:
Media critics and newsroom professionals cite a wide array of factors: the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy and controlling the news agenda; extremely dangerous conditions that limited reporting by Western reporters in much of Iraq; the challenge of covering the multifaceted situation in the embattled country with a finite amount of reporting firepower. Some see a media still intimidated by the post-9/11 orgy of patriotism. Yet there's little doubt that missed clues and ignored signals were part of the mix.
This sort of thing leads to cynicism. First off, it boils down to the press not doing their jobs, especially if one compares it to a past era (was Vietnam so much less dangerous? was Nixon that much less secretive?). Second, it sounds like the press is akin to the proverbial bimbo who cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. And, finally, too many stories are involved to blame it all on patriotism or the dangers of wartime. As the press effect concept suggests, something more is at stake. Its endemic to the modern era of mainstream media.
What amuses me is when some in the media suggest that they do not want to appear biased. Not only is this unlikely to be possible, few people believe them anyway. This results in stenographical stories (talking points of both sides supplied, no real analysis) that itself suggests a bias (vanilla center?) with the usual problems of various voices not being heard (e.g. pre-war, about a third of the population was against the war, so it would have been helpful for the middle third [unsure] to consistently hear their point of view). And, just how beneficial is it all?
Furthermore, the coverage still often benefits one side because of its ability to take advantage of the system. This sort of thing plays in the hands of Bush, who benefits from "suspicious" stuff about Kerry, while stuff about him is too amorphous to be too damning. For instance, we have the "suspicious" records that Daily Kos points out (in an admirable bit of research) could easily have been typed using technology at the time. By the time the mainstream press gets this out, it's too late.
Kerry supporters cannot just whine about this -- one cannot go into a rainstorm without an umbrella and complain about getting wet -- but the ability of one side to play the system suggests the system has its problems. The system itself surely isn't the only problem, of course, given Kerry himself has various faults. The fact is, however, so does Bush. I'd say a lot more. Likewise, as the articles point out, there was some coverage on the various stories that took so long to catch fire. The problem is that a bit of coverage, especially weakly portrayed (photos and headlines are particularly noteworthy markers here), is often just not enough.
Mainstream press sometimes complains that it must deal with modern 24/7 news cycles, tabloids, public figures who game the system, and Internet coverage that often is full with nothing more than mere rumor. Some of this sort of thing has always been with us, so the tears are a bit overblown. Others are but part of the ever changing media world, which must and can be properly handled.
For instance, print media sometimes fear that they are "behind the curve," but the answer is not to ape others by printing rumor and unsubstantiated tidbits. It should take advantage of its ability to supply additional commentary and reflection and leave the glorified gossip on the gossip pages. Why the research staff of at least one mainstream daily could not have aced this "national guard" story long before now is unclear to me. Amateurs such as Kevin Drum (Political Animal) put them to shame. On the other hand, the Washington Post has had some coverage by Dana Milbank and others that has been quite good. So, yes, good stuff is out there.
I'd conclude with a particular pet peeve I have with my own daily tabloid (NY Daily News), which does have excellent sports and entertainment coverage. First off, its coverage of the protests during the Republican Convention alone belies any claim of neutrality, though this guest editorial supplies a fitting rebuttal. But, more egregiously, the editorial election coverage is often of the all too typical responsive variety. In other words, we hear about how badly Kerry is handling attacks and so forth without much insight in just how unjust said attacks are. This is a particular fault of one paper, true, but it bleeds into overall mainstream coverage as well.
It is not "partisan" to analyze the truth and point out the faults of one particular side. It is known as "news."