Midterm Grades on Campaign ’24 Reporting

Including imaginary headlines that reflect real ones

Welcome to Second Rough Draft, a newsletter about journalism in our time, how it (often its business) is evolving, and the challenges it faces.

I know it feels like the presidential campaign has been underway forever—remember the Winter of ’22-’23 when Ron DeSantis seemed about to become the frontrunner?—but in the old days, it was said that Labor Day began the serious phase of the campaign. And this year, it’s been just two months since the match-up was set, while we have 40 days to go.

So in that spirit, the timing seems right this week for a midterm set of grades on campaign reporting. Amid all the carping, much of the verdict is better than you’ve probably read elsewhere. Here goes:

“Not the Odds, but the Stakes”

That is NYU Prof. Jay Rosen’s formulation of how, especially this year, the press needs to pay more attention to why the election matters, and what it is likely to decide, and less to who is likely to win. Jay should take a pretty deep bow here, I think. His injunction, first surfaced in March 2023 and widely repeated and amplified since, has been remarkably effective. Sure, there’s a lot of coverage of polls, most of it weak, but there have been acres of coverage of what the election may mean for democracy, the significance of Project 2025, even of the tax bill Congress has very nearly forced itself to consider next year.

not the odds, but the stakes

Most significantly, it seems almost universally understood today that either presidential candidate could win, and the coverage has proceeded accordingly. This is in marked contrast to 2016, when there’s almost no question that Donald Trump received less scrutiny than he would have if his chances of victory had been believed greater.  

For whichever is the losing side in November, this will have significant implications. They will be deeply disappointed, even outraged, but they won’t be able to say—at least credibly in my view—that voters didn’t understand what they were doing this year. That will be heartwarming for many, sobering for many others. Grade: A-

But What About the Issues?

The oldest saw in commentary on political journalism, even older than whining about poll coverage, is hand-wringing about a lack of attention to covering “the issues.” Phooey.

This was actually the subject of the first op-ed I ever published, 44 years ago in the New York Times. (I think the piece holds up pretty well, but am happy to debate that in the comments below.) I made two points that transcend that long-ago moment: First, that the issues we appear to be arguing about in the campaign are unlikely to be those facing the next president. And second, that the deeper questions of public policy which will shape the future don’t tend to lend themselves well to daily journalism. I think both remain true.

On the first point, take immigration and the border. Kamala Harris has now endorsed the Lankford compromise bill. Since Trump’s only objection to it this past Spring was that its passage might have solved a problem on his opponents’ watch, it seems quite possible, if not actually likely, that, no matter who wins the presidency, it will pass a closely-divided Congress in 2025, taking that issue off the table, at least for a time. You haven’t heard that much in the coverage. You should hear it regularly.

On the deeper issues, it’s more of a split decision, I think. The democracy/autocracy debate is healthy, although I do wish there were more reporting about voters to whom some measure of autocracy is attractive. (I think this is a much larger group than most coverage tends to acknowledge.) And that congressional tax fight next year, triggered by the sunsetting of Trump’s tax cuts mostly for the rich, should be the focus of many more specific as well as philosophical questions, to both candidates.

Meanwhile, the issue of what should be our aim in relations with China—do we ultimately seek a new sort of great power condominium, another victory over Communist expansionism as with the Soviets, or something else entirely—has received almost no attention at all, from the candidates or the press.

What I didn’t write about in 1980 also remains true: The Issues are paramount in the earnest world of the League of Women Voters and musty editorial pages, but in the real world, then and now, fitness for leadership tends to be of greater concern to more people casting their ballots. Like Jay Rosen’s Stakes, I do think this concern has largely gotten its due in 2024.  Grade: B-

The Debate Moderators

Moderating a presidential debate these days is a public service, not a prize. It gets you a guaranteed bunch of grief, and precious little praise. But I think both the CNN team in July and the ABC team earlier this month acquitted themselves well. The CNN pairing of Dana Bash and Jake Tapper asked probing questions of both candidates, and revealed weaknesses for both; it’s just that Biden’s were so much more unexpected (despite the warnings) that Trump’s received little attention at the time.

The ABC team of David Muir and Linsey Davis, forearmed by the CNN match-up, asked even more pointed questions and did the best job gently but firmly fact-checking that we have seen since Trump first upended the furniture nine years ago. Presumably as a result, Trump responded that in this, his last campaign, there will be no more debates.  Grade: A

True and False Balance

Finally, we come to the part about which there has been lots of daily heat and far too little light, the part where partisans on both sides see problematic coverage and devote themselves to “working the refs.” Here the grades are widely variant and largely mixed.

The following admittedly imaginary headlines convey what I think people are seeing and concerned about:

New York Times:

“Donald Trump is a Dangerous Lunatic. Kamala Harris Isn’t Perfect.”

CNN/MSNBC:

“Another Disturbing Moment from Donald Trump. Isn’t Kamala Harris Wonderful?”

Fox News:

“Kamala Harris Is a Communist. Donald Trump Is Our Savior.”

Let me make a number of observations about these archetypes. With the Times, this is hardly false equivalence; lunacy and imperfection are not antonyms. And by my lights, it’s not at all inaccurate. The Times is calling Trump out, with both probing reporting and copious commentary, in ways it has never before deployed in a presidential campaign. Many of us think that’s called for by an unprecedented candidate—a convicted felon and adjudicated sexual predator, the instigator of a failed insurrection.

Under the surface, what I think is going on is this: The folks running the Times newsroom, and most of those up and down its ranks, largely agree, but their view of the starkness of the choice also makes them uncomfortable, and their discomfort occasionally manifests itself in headlines (and sometimes even stories) that serve as makeweights of conscience.

At the lefty cable networks, note that my mythical/typical headlines are largely fact-free, and expressions of opinion, all tilting in one direction. When they aren’t broadcasting hard news, that’s what these channels have become. That may be commercially sound as a strategy, but I do think it leaves something to be desired as journalism.

Finally, Fox is different. Of all my headlines, it’s the only one that contains a blatant falsehood, as well as ludicrous pandering to the lowest common denominator of its own audience. Fox learned enough from the Dominion voting machines litigation to unload Tucker Carlson, but that was as far toward responsibility as Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch were prepared to go. They chose slavishness to ratings (and money!) over any remaining commitment to accuracy or balance, and this campaign has been their unfinest hour.

Overall, I think a lot of the press criticism in this season, from both the left and right, has been over the top. But one more concern, applies, I am afraid, across the board. That has been the tendency to engage in what some have evocatively called “sanewashing,” rendering the ramblings of politicians more coherent, articulate and rational than they really are. The principal beneficiary has been Donald Trump, but in my home town of New York, I have seen the same thing fairly often with newly-indicted Mayor Eric Adams. This approach does voters no good, and brings no credit to the reporters who engage in the technique. It’s an approach on which newsrooms should seek to go cold turkey— that is, just stop.

Grades: all over the place; lots of room for improvement

In all, and clearly with very important exceptions, I think the coverage of the Trump-Harris campaign has been better than much of the press criticism would have you believe. With continued vigilance and discipline, I hope we’ll still be able to say that six weeks from now.

Second Rough Draft will be on vacation the next two weeks. See you soon.