|
|
February 23, 1996 |
|
Margaret Warner was in New Hampshire this week to cover the first 1996 Republican primary. She has interviewed Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, Lamar Alexander and Bob Dole. Warner began covering Presidential campaigns in 1980 for the San Diego Union. She reported the 1984 Reagan-Mondale contest and the 1988 Bush-Dukakis contest for Newsweek. In 1992, she focused on the differences in foreign policy among the candidates. She also covered the nominating conventions for CNN. She answers viewers' questions about what it's like to cover a presidential race. 
Click to see a Forum Menu.
A question from J. P. Hartneady, Jr. of Falls Church, VA: Change in Spin Control Since 1980, when you began covering Presidential campaigns, has the amount and style of spin control affected your ability to get credible information from the candidates? Margaret Warner responds: Presidential candidates' handlers have been trying to "spin" journalists for as long as there have been handlers. I don't think it's any more concentrated or intense now than it was in the first presidential campaign I covered, in 1980. What has changed since then is the amount of "spinning" that goes on publicly -- that is, the degree to which handlers, advisers and pollsters for the candidates appear on television, "spinning" not just journalists, but you -- the viewers. But in my view, there's nothing nefarious about "spinning" or "being spun." I think of spinning as another word for interpretation -- not information. That's a significant distinction. A reporter should never depend on a campaign for raw information -- i.e., the candidate's past voting record, where the money is coming from for the campaign, etc. The reporter should always go to independent sources for that. And campaign handlers know that. A good spinner never tries to get a reporter to believe something that's flatly not true -- i.e., the candidate has raised x amount of money, when he hasn't. That's lying, and since a good reporter has so many other sources of information, the lie is pretty quickly caught. And that campaign handler has lost his effectiveness in dealing with journalists. Rather, a spinner tries to put his own interpretation, or the campaign's interpretation, on an event -- a candidate's performance, or an event like a debate, or a political development of some other nature. A good reporter doesn't swallow that whole, or adopt it as his own. And if the spinning is not only self-serving, which of course it is, but patently, foolishly so, trying to sell an interpretation that flies in the face of the facts, again that spinner has lost credibility. (there are plenty of those around) But it's instructive for a reporter to listen to the spin -- because the spin tells you a lot about the strategic thinking of the campaign in question. Once, when I first started covering campaigns, I asked one candidate's pollster to "explain your strategy." The pollster told me he'd be glad to do so, but he gave me a little hint: Just look at 3 things about a campaign, he said -- the money, the speeches, the schedule. If you can't deduce the strategy from those 3 things -- i.e., where the money is spent, what the candidate says, and where the candidate spends his time -- then, he said, the candidate has a screwed up strategy. I'd add "spin," to those other three factors. Spin is simply another element a good reporter listens to and analyzes to understand a candidate's strategy. A question from Peter Carlyle of New York, NY: Campaigns Are campaigns all that different now, or do they just seem so? Weren't the Democratic primaries in 1992 just as banal and focused on personalities as this one? When is the last time there was a genuine debate on broad themes that later set the tone and content of the next administration? Perhaps in 1980 among the Republicans? Margaret Warner responds: You make a valid point, that the public and press always seem to complain about the nature of the campaign in progress. But I actually think that campaigns aren't as "banal," as you put it, as they're sometimes criticized for being. Quite often, primary campaigns are fairly spirited debates about the direction that a party is going. On the Democratic side, for example, ever since 1984 there's been an ongoing debate about whether the party should hew to its traditional "old Democrat" values and prescriptions, or strike out in a "new Democrat" direction: witness Walter Mondale vs. new Democrat Gary Hart in 1984; Mike Dukakis vs. Gephardt (with his protectionist message) in 1988; Bill Clinton vs. Paul Tsongas (with his emphasis on balancing the budget), Bob Kerrey (who flirted with Gephardt-like protectionism) and Tom Harkin (resolutely liberal) in 1992. (I leave it to you to decide if Bill Clinton's campaign themes set the tone and content for his Administration.) There's been less of that deep debate on the Republican side in recent contests -- in part because half the time, there was an incumbent running. The 1980 Republican primary contest did present a clear ideological/cultural choice between Ronald Reagan and George Bush; John Anderson even broke away to run as a 3rd party candidate. But I'd be hard-pressed to outline the ideological or policy questions at stake in the 1988 Republican primary battle between George Bush and Bob Dole. In a country as centrist as ours, where voters seem more pragmatic than ideological, (as compared to some countries in Europe, for example), it's probably not realistic to expect major ideological or policy fights in every election. But they happen more often than we might expect -- witness this year's Republican primary contest. Norman B. Waite, Ph.D. of Wappingers Falls, NY: Just the Facts Yes, I know, the words don't matter, only the feelings, expressions, tone of voice, pictures, impressions, drama, ....But, really, could we take a little time out from, "He said this and meant that..." and get down to the facts? Forbes is talking about a flat tax and something like the old gold standard. Okay, dive in, get the details, and let's hear them. I very much want any and all facts on the proposals of any of the leading candidates for the Presidency. So, let's see the numbers, graphs, distributions -- let's see the facts. Margaret Warner responds: I take issue with your assumption that none of the news you hear or read gives you "facts" about the candidates policy positions, or goes into the candidates' positions in depth. Take Pat Buchanan's ideas on trade. Last night on the NewsHour (2/22), we held a 4-person discussion/debate on the very questions Buchanan is raising, and on his proposed solutions to the economic insecurity Americans feel. At the same time, there is also a place for political analysis of the kind Mark Shields and Paul Gigot did in a segment the previous evening (2/21), which looks at other aspects of Buchanan's candidacy -- why the Republican Establishment feels threatened by Buchanan, and so forth. That issue has policy dimensions, as well as political ones, and in that kind of discussion, it's perfectly appropriate to use a short-hand to describe Buchanan's positions on trade. For viewers/readers to complain that there aren't enough "facts," or enough discussion about ideas and policies in the media as a whole is, with all due respect, a cop-out. The sad truth is that too few Americans take the trouble to educate themselves about the issues from the many sources available to them. Will you get a deep discussion of Steve Forbes' flat tax on your local 11 p. m. newscast? Probably not. But if you want that, there are plenty of media and information outlets in which you can find it. Without pointing fingers at any particular news organization(s), I would agree with you that political coverage is shaded a bit too much toward the personality and horse race aspects, particularly in the closing days of a primary. But a primary is, after all, a horse race. And there's nothing wrong, in my view, with news stories that reflect that. A question from Ernie Martin of Berea, KY: Presidential Campaigns Do you think that candidates are merely reactionaries to polling data and can not, or will not, speak out about what they really think, for fear of being misreported, misrepresented, and misinterpreted? Is this becoming MORE of a problem in recent years? Margaret Warner responds: I'm not sure that candidates are afraid of being misreported. But I do think that many of them are inhibited or constrained from speaking their minds in certain areas, not because of the reporting, but because they are fearful of offending a particular interest/constituency group by not being "pure" enough on the issue. I think they're also fearful that what they say will be deliberately, and easily, misrepresented by an opponent, particularly in a campaign commercial. A 30-second ad doesn't leave much room for nuance, but plenty of room for distortion. That's why you don't see much honesty from candidates on emotional issues on which they might have a fairly nuanced position -- an issue like abortion, for example. The challenge for journalists is to report what a candidate's statements, but also to provide context for that statement -- i.e., the candidate's past voting record on an issue, or past positions. Beyond that, we have to leave the decision about the credibility of the candidate's statements to the reader or viewer. A question from Darren H. Lubotsky of Berkeley, CA: Interviewing Candidates First of all, thank you for your excellent work, day-in and day-out. My question is about interviewing the candidates. Why are interviewers so accepting of candidates' responses? In particular, anyone familiar with Patrick Buchanan knows the racist and anti-Semitic views he holds by reading his writings. (The "National Review" even devoted an entire issue on the question of whether Buchanan is anti- Semite--and answered it affirmatively!) Yet most, but certainly not all, interviewers never bring up this issue. When they do, his answers are never examined by the interviewer. Do interviewers feel the need to be "objective" prevents them from strongly arguing positions? Are interviewers too time constrained to adequately prepare for interviews, for example by learning a little of the theory of international trade in order to better test Mr. Buchanan's views? Or is it simply that TV time is so precious that talking more in depth about a single issue is not feasible on a broad based news program? Margaret Warner responds: First of all, thanks for your kinds words about the News Hour. The questions you raise, about an interviewer's responsibility to confront or challenge interview subjects, is a difficult one that we wrestle with all the time. Obviously an interviewer should be well-prepared. And obviously no good interviewer should let an interview subject get away with bald-faced lies, or gross misrepresentations of his own position or that of another candidate. If a journalist is prepared, a quick challenge -- "But, Mr. X., isn't it true that..etc?" is in order. But those are the easy situations to deal with. The harder decision comes in deciding what to focus on, and how deeply to go into a particular subject, in a given interview. That's particularly true on television. Different interviews require different approaches. Let me give you an example. Last fall, we did 12-13 minute interviews with each of the candidates for president. We interviewed every candidate, regardless of our assessment of their "chances." In those interviews, we tried to draw them out on their policy positions -- to give the voters/viewers a chance to assess them. They were primarily policy interviews, in other words. Yet even there, given the time constraints, a debate between interviewer and interviewee on one particular issue wasn't appropriate, since it would preclude discussion of any other issue. By contrast, last week in New Hampshire, I did a 10-minute interview each night with each of the major candidates. (Dole, Alexander, Buchanan, Forbes). These interviews were conducted in a heated campaign context -- a horse-race context, if you will -- and so they were quite different. It seemed appropriate to use each one to draw the candidate out on the issues -- political as well as policy -- that had emerged as differences between him and the other top candidates, rather than explore the full panoply of issues that that particular candidate had adopted. Again, though, it would have been off-balance to use that interview opportunity to pound away on one subject. For a full debate over Buchanan's ideas about trade, a NewsHour viewer had to wait until last night, when we brought in 4 experts to debate it. There's another calculation one has to make, as well: there's a question of tone that a television interviewer has to be conscious of. To answer your question directly, being "objective" does indeed prevent interviewers from "strongly arguing positions." That isn't our role. In my view, being objective doesn't mean being a passive sounding board, an electronic bulletin board, for whatever a candidate wants to say. But in my view, a journalist shouldn't cross the line into sounding like an advocate on one side or another. Intellectually aggressive is one thing, confrontational is another. (sometimes a fine line!) Quite obviously, the tone of the NewsHour is different from other shows. We believe our viewers are smart enough, and informed enough, to come to their own judgments. It should never appear that we are trying to drive those judgments. A question from Joseph A. McDonald of Burlington, Vermont: National Conventions I love your reporting, keep up the great work. My question has to do with the importance of the national conventions. Years ago the conventions played an important role in the political process. Today, however, they seem to be obsolete. The candidates are determined during the primaries, no one really pays much attention to the party platform, the networks provide limited coverage, they are expensive. Do you think the conventions serve any useful purpose? Why do the parties continue to have them? Margaret Warner responds: Thanks for your nice comments about our work. You are right, the conventions have in recent years become obsolete -- at least as candidate-choosing events. But they are revealing in what they tell us about what a party is trying to communicate to voters. And for the participants, they are more like family reunions -- cohesion-building (or sometimes cohesion-damaging) events that any family, including a political family, needs on occasion. This year could be different though. It is possible -- a long-shot, but possible -- that you could have 2 or 3 candidates stay in this Republican field so long that no one goes to the convention with the 993 votes he needs for nomination. Then the Republican convention would decide the nominee. What a story that would be -- a field day for political journalists! A question from Neil Penick of Lexington, VA: Duty of Journalists It seems that campaign coverage--at least at national levels--has deteriorated in recent years. Coverage focuses on the "horse race", the campaign tactics and strategy, as well as the personality or scandal, instead of the issues of concern to voters. Voters are turning away from politics and government and say that they mistrust government more than ever. What can journalists do to change this trend? Are journalist responsible? Should the public expect and therefore demand more from journalists? P.S. You may have seen an article recently in the Atlantic Monthly which explored why Americans hate the media. I'm sorry that I can't remember the exact title or the author, but I suggest you take a look at it. Also, I commend the high quality of the coverage on the Newshour. You, Jim, and your colleagues always do a wonderful job exploring and reporting on the issues. Margaret Warner responds: Again, thank you for your encouraging comments about the NewsHour. Also, the Atlantic Monthly piece you are thinking of was by James Fallows, who has a book out on the same subject. I hope you'll forgive me for this -- but for an answer to your question, could I refer you to my comments above to Norman Waite? My basic view is, yes, there's a lot of horse race coverage out there, and a lot of triviality and superficiality (one network evening newscast last week reported breathlessly that Lamar Alexander's failure to know the price of eggs could "derail his campaign," or words to that effect!) But there's also plenty of solid issue information and policy analysis available. Any citizen who wants to educate himself or herself has plenty of sources from which to do so. If only more of our fellow Americans would do that. A question from Alan Hemenway of Arcadia, CA: Editorial License & Conjecture How much is it your call, and how much are you responding to whoever is speaking to you in you ear piece? Margaret Warner responds: Nobody says anything to me in my earpiece except how many minutes I have left. And sometimes I'm concentrating so hard on the interview at hand I don't even hear that! Mark Rocha of Los Angeles, California: Why Iowa and New Hampshire? It seems to me one of the reasons why the Republican party looks like it is self-destructing is that it has continued to conform to Iowa and New Hampshire as the first tests, when all the evidence suggests that both states have essentially lost their value as barometers of the national electorate. I saw some statistics that showed that New Hampshire is 1% black and 1% other minorities. I mean, really! Like it or not, whoever is president will have to be president of all the people and the U.S. is a culturally diverse nation. So I suppose my question is why doesn't the press consistently call attention to the absurdities of the current primary system and schedule? Margaret Warner responds: I take all your points about how unrepresentative Iowa and New Hampshire are of the rest of the country. But I think the press points that out all the time -- where else, after all, did you get those statistics you cited? If the Republican and Democratic parties want to make those the first contests, and the candidates want to spend big money and time to run there, it's our job to cover them. A question from Salvatore Collora of Los Angeles, CA: Why so much huff about "Negative Ads" I enjoy watching your pieces on the Newshour. I also watch several other political TV shows, and can't get over why the media makes such a big deal about negative ads and keeps bringing them up. Yes, we all know that people don't like them. But let's take a closer look. What's "negative"? If candidate A says, "I'm for this, candidate B is for this," is that negative? What about, "Did you know candidate B voted this way on the House Floor?" Please reply if you get the chance. Margaret Warner responds: You make a valid point about the difference between purely "negative" ads and what one might call "comparative" ads or "truth squad" or "record" ads. I don't think there's anything inherently "negative" about pointing out the voting record of one's opponent -- though when you listen to the tone of the announcer's voice, the sound effects and the picture of the opponent that's used, it's quite clear that the ad-maker didn't intend the ad to be complimentary. These kind of truth-squad ads do often distort an opponent's record, however -- taking some small little clause in a bill the candidate voted for, and saying, "Candidate X voted against apple pie." You get the idea. When I interviewed undecided voters in New Hampshire, I found two schools of thought on this question. Some said they actually liked the negative ads, up to a point, because it gave them the "other side" or a counter-weight to the puffery that a campaign necessarily puts out about its own candidate. Others said there was entirely too much advertising running down one's opponent, and too little really explaining a candidate's positive view of a particular issue. None of this would be such a problem, of course, if voters didn't rely so much on these 30-second spots for basic information about the candidates. A little independent reading would give a voter plenty of background, record and context with which to judge a candidate's assertions about himself. A question from David R. Ward of Southington, CT: "Age" Issue 1) You are the best thing on the News Hour... 2) Is everyone afraid to mention that perhaps one reason people may have reservations about Dole is his age? Is it politically incorrect to talk about this? 3) Thanks, we enjoy watching and thinking about your interviews. Margaret Warner responds: On the "age issue," as it pertains to Dole: I think the press has been fairly up-front, reporting what voters say about Dole's age, and how much of an issue it is. To some voters, it does seem to be a concern. But to lots and lots of voters, it isn't. At least they don't acknowledge that it is. Perhaps voters do think it's politically incorrect to raise it, so they hold back. But I don't detect any kind of inappropriate reservations on the part of the press. Dole's opponents are something else again. Some are trying to raise it, but indirectly. Lamar Alexander keeps saying that Bob Dole isn't the leader "to lead us into the next century." When we interviewed Dole in New Hampshire on Monday, just before the primary, Dole said, "I've listened to that for the past 12 months." When I asked if he thought Alexander was trying to say he was too old to be president, Dole said, "Obviously, he's been trying to say that." But he went on to make a joke of it, saying his cholesterol and blood pressure were both better than President Clinton's and "I have promised not to make health an issue in the campaign." A question from Paul Rockman of New Haven, CT: Pat Buchanan and The Press I'm interested in your thoughts on what the ascendancy of the Buchanan campaign says about the line between the news media and politics. From your perspective, what effect does all of this have on the place of the news media in public life and the credibility of media institutions? Does it create a greater need for accountability, and if so, from where does that accountability come? Margaret Warner responds: There is certainly an important issue involved in the blurring of the line between journalism and political advocacy, as Fallows and others have suggested -- particularly when it comes to so many "regular journalists" who now participate in these TV chat shows. (I'm not throwing stones; I used to be a regular panelist on CNN's The Capital Gang, though I kept my role to that of analyst rather than advocate. Fortunately for me, I'm resolutely non-ideological. ) But I don't think the Buchanan candidacy is one of the leading examples of this problem. Nobody would ever confuse Buchanan with being a journalist. He's never been a working reporter, and has never held himself out to be one. His entire career has been either as a political insider (inside the White House), or as a conservative polemicist/columnist, first on print, then on TV. Perhaps I'm assuming too much knowledge on the part of the public about Buchanan's background. But to working journalists, Pat Buchanan was never "one of us." And he never pretended to be one. A question from Harold Vivaldi of San Clemente, CA: "Dumbing Down" of Candidates ? I have the distinct impression that this year's crop of major candidates are as slow witted as any I can remember. I say this because they seem lost without prepared speeches. Am I getting to be an old fuddy duddy? Is their opinion of the electorate so low that they leave their brains at home? Would appreciate your views on the basis of your firsthand experience on the campaign trail. Thanks! Margaret Warner responds: I think you may be getting the wrong impression of these candidates' speeches, based on the ones you happen to be watching. Actually, out on the campaign trail, what strikes me is how few times these candidates use any prepared remarks at all. Steve Forbes doesn't use a text; neither does Pat Buchanan; neither does Lamar Alexander. And most of the time -- except when he's introducing a new speech -- neither does Bob Dole. These candidates give virtually the same speech 4 or 5 times a day -- different parts of it at different times, with different emphases, but basically the same speech. Most of them have it committed to memory. The only time they use prepared texts is when it's a "significant" speech, or a "major policy address" before a fairly formal audience. |
 | ||||
| ||||
|
|
| ||
| ||||
| ||||
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||||
