Assignment 1-2 pages

Assignment 1-2 pages

The Alienated American Voter: Are the News Media to Blame? Author(s): Richard Harwood Source: The Brookings Review, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Fall, 1996), pp. 32-35 Published by: Brookings Institution Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20080685 Accessed: 08-07-2018 19:07 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

Brookings Institution Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Brookings Review

This content downloaded from 206.224.223.244 on Sun, 08 Jul 2018 19:07:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Wt)t ^?ltenateb Are The News Media To Blame?

by Richard Harwood

The attention of the American public is not riveted on government. As we are constantly reminded by polls and academic studies, millions of our people can’t name their city council members, their representatives in state government, or their representatives in Congress. Ten times more people can identify Judge Ito or Judge Wapner of TV’s people’s court than can identify the Chief Justice of the United States. Half our people don’t vote in presidential elections. Some 80-90 percent don’t vote in many local elections. The Pew Research Center for People and the Press never lets us forget that people pay little attention to the lat est happenings in Washington or in Bosnia and China.

Most of us are pretty much oblivious to something called the “Contract with America” and other hot

button issues of the day in Washington. One of the endearing anecdotes from my days as a political re porter in Kentucky involved a congressional candidate who was asked to state his position on the Taft-Hartley Bill. He did not equivocate: “By God, if we owe it we ought to pay it!”

The Man in the Back Row Seventy years ago, in “The Phantom Public,” Walter Lippmann gave us a sketch of the democratic condi tion. “The private citizen,” he wrote, “has come to feel rather like a deaf spectator in the back row, who ought to keep his mind on the mystery off there, but cannot quite manage to stay awake. He knows he is somehow affected by what is going on. Rules and reg ulations continually, taxes annually, and wars occasion ally remind him that he is being swept along by great drifts of circumstance.

“Yet these public affairs are in no convincing way his affairs. They are for the most part invisible. They are managed, if they are managed at all, in distant cen ters, from behind the scenes by unnamed powers. As

a private person he does not know for certain what is going on, or who is doing it, or where he is being car ried. No newspaper reports his environment so that he can grasp it; no school has taught him how to imagine it; his ideals, often, do not fit with it; listening to speeches, uttering opinions, and voting do not, he finds, enable him to govern it. He lives in a world in which he cannot see, does not understand, and is un able to direct.

“In the cold light of experience, he knows that his sovereignty is a fiction. He reigns in theory, but in fact he does not govern. Contemplating himself and his actual accomplishments in public affairs, contrasting the influence he exerts with the influence he is sup posed according to democratic theory to exert, he must say of his sovereignty what Bismarck said of Napoleon II: ‘At a distance it is something, but close to, it is nothing at all.'”

It is not, I think, entirely cynical, to conclude that these sentiments are as relevant now as then. We may be born equal in the sight of the divinity and we may possess certain inalienable rights. But equal status in the political system and in the economic order is not among them. According to the dictum in Washington, your Rolodex defines who you are. I would add that it is not only the names on your Rolodex that count but the names?especially your own?on the Rolodexes of the people we call. After unanswered phone calls following his retirement, a journalistic col league said he had made a discovery: “I’m not a has been. I’m a never-was.”

In terms of political access, that is the normal plight of the average man and woman. They know, like Lippmann’s man in the back row, that real polit ical power is as unequally distributed as wealth and health in our democracy. The Friends of Bill are not on the same row with the Friends of Joe Six-Pack. This gets our attention in the press every few years, but it is unclear if we in the media bear responsibility for this state of affairs or, if we do, how we can repair the system.

In any case, the large promises implicit in the idea of “one man, one vote” have never been realized whatever the roles the press has assumed in political

Richard Harwood, a writer and editor at the Washington Post

for 22 years before retiring in 1988, is a nationally syndicated

columnist. This article is adapted from the keynote address given

at a Brookings Center for Public Policy Education National Issues

Forum on The Media and American Democracy on May 29.

3 2 THE BROOKINGS REVIEW

This content downloaded from 206.224.223.244 on Sun, 08 Jul 2018 19:07:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

American Leiter affairs over the history of our country. In an earlier age learning. We attached many qualifications for voting when the concepts of self-government and citizen leg- and other participation in public affairs?sex, race, lit? islators became our foundation stones, it was taken for eracy, age, residency, and property ownership. It was granted that the tasks of governing should be assigned also taken for granted that newspapers on the whole to a small element of society?men of property and would be controlled subsidiaries of the political parties.

Most Americans pay very little attention to the latest

events in Washington, D.C.

Once upon a Time, a Passion for Politics.

Many of the requirements for vot ing and office holding eventually

were discarded and a commercially successful press emerged, a press no longer financially dependent on the parties but still capable of par tisan practices that today would shock journalistic critics and prac titioners out of their socks. We en

tered a long era in which great numbers of the unwashed and less

privileged not only gained the franchise but gained office. A pas sion for politics stirred the masses as Tocqueville and other travelers noted. Not everyone was pleased. In Boston, having the Irish in City Hall was comparable to having barbarians in the Temple. Others elsewhere had similar reactions as

rewards for political activism be came more and more visible and political participation became more common. There was job patronage on a large scale. There were also turkeys, coal, and bail money from the precinct captain; immunity from arrest for barkeeps, gamblers,

Progressive Reform Speculation about the fall-off in popular political par ticipation in this century abounds. One theory assigns blame to the ever-present reformers who concluded that too much raw democracy was ruining the coun try. In response there arose among the middle and up per classes a strong Progressive movement designed to destroy the city political machines and the patronage and corrupt practices on which they thrived. The movement involved such radical proposals as a merit system for public employment; the use of trained ac countants and auditors to keep the books in order; anti-nepotism laws; universal suffrage coupled with foolproof voter registration systems and various other

and prostitutes, as well as flexible judges if you wound up in court; construction contracts and fran chises for loyalists and high bidders.

This was more democracy than the country had ever seen, and it

was inspired not only by greed or hope of material gain but by the partisan fraternalism and sense of belonging that we now call com munitarianism and by lasting emo tional intensities arising out of shared experiences, most especially the Civil War. An obvious legacy

was the Solid South’s century-long commitment to the Democratic party and Republican voting pat terns that have endured even longer. The poorest county in Ap palachia for a long time was the most Republican county in Amer

ica and still is so far as I know. The rituals and celebrations of

politics strengthened and sustained these bonds. Thousands gathered for grand feedings where the suds and whiskey flowed all night. Spec tacular rallies at the precinct club house featured songs and banners, hours of speechmaking, exciting parades with bands and torchlights, dances and games of chance. News papers stoked these fires for a public in which education, as we define it today, was a scarce commodity. When the first popular election

for president was held in 1824, the turnout of eligible voters was about 27 percent. By the end of the cen tury turnouts of 70-80 percent

were common. They then fell off precipitously.

safeguards against electoral fraud. These proposals co incided with the rise of social science as a legitimate field of scholarly endeavor and the rise of credentialism as a panacea for many ills. Doctors, lawyers, architects, teachers, and engineers, among others, would hence forth be credentialed by colleges and universities and licensed to pursue their professions or vocations. Even tually, licensing boards were set up for hairdressers, bar bers, morticians, cabdrivers, the building trades, and so on. So why not credentialed public employees?

The thrust of it all was that the nation should have

“clean” government and “clean” elections and should bring to government businesslike management of its financial affairs and to government and business alike

FALL 1996

PHOTOGRAPH BY HAROLD FEINSTEN

This content downloaded from 206.224.223.244 on Sun, 08 Jul 2018 19:07:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

“professional” management and skills. Even newspa pers began talking about the need for an educated newsroom labor force and for journalism schools to provide the training.

A generation of “muckrakers,” led by such figures as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell, and Ray Stannard Baker, exposed the inner workings of the corrupt po litical machines and the corrupt use of economic power by corporations such as Standard Oil and American Sugar. Their work inspired newspaper peo ple all over the country to emulation.

The results of the Progressive movement were mixed. Many reforms were achieved with lasting beneficial effects on society?child labor and antitrust laws, for example. But they had some unintended consequences.

Exit the Voters Cleaning up government and elections greatly dimin ished the rewards of political activism for those whose credentials were nonexistent. One had now to pass a test or have a diploma to get a job; political loyalty

was no longer enough. The Progressives and their muckraking allies had hoped that an “aroused public opinion would fulfill the promises of democracy,” clean up the mess, and move society toward a more Utopian state. Instead, what followed was apathy and disillusionment. Voter turnout fell 40 percent from 1896 to 1920. Steffens’s marvelous book on the un

derside of politics, The Shame of the Cities, sold only 3,000 copies. Peter Finley Dunne’s character, Mr. Dooley, asked a salient question: “Is there an institu tion that isn’t corrupt to its very foundations? Don’t you believe it.”

The years since the mid-1960s are regarded by many journalists as the Second Muckraking era. All institutions have been fair game for investigative re porting and critical assessment. In part, because of these efforts, the political process in one sense has been “purified” as Progressive reforms have been re alized. The spoils system is by and large a thing of the past. Barriers to voting have been eliminated. Polit ical party bosses are extinct, the smoke-filled room an archaic memory. The party machines that once pro vided the foot soldiers of politics have been replaced by a professional class of political consultants who in 1992 were paid $250 million to manage the elections of congressional candidates. That does not include the tens of millions of dollars paid consultants that year for presidential campaign services. They create the propaganda, raise the money, train and market the candidates, define issues and election strategies, organize rallies, get out the vote, and write the script for party conventions. They perform virtually all the functions once performed by ordinary people who now sit on the sidelines viewing elections, as Peter Shapiro has written, either with indifferent detach ment or as “shameful exercises in mudslinging, ob fuscation and demagoguery.” The primary elections and caucuses that were intended to open up the sys tem have been no cure for political alienation and

mistrust. The participation rate in the primaries of 1992 and 1996 was barely 20 percent of the popula tion. The rich vote far more than the poor except in unusual settings such as the District of Columbia, where Mayor Marion Barry’s vision of govern ment?jobs for loyalists and the needy?has drawn enormous support in low-income wards.

Do apathy and lack of partic ipation constitute a problem

for American democracy?

Are the Media Responsible? There are two important questions here. The first is whether apathy and lack of participation constitute a “problem” for American democ racy. The second is this: if it is a problem, are the media responsible in one degree or another?

On the first point, some would argue with Lippmann and others that nonvoting by uninterested and uninformed people is not a problem at all. It was their view that instead of grading democracy on the basis of popular participa tion, we should judge the system

by the well-being of its citizens? their health, education, safety, housing, and material standards of living. If those tests are met, this argument goes, the system works regardless of the numbers who participate in elections or other

wise take part in the political life of the nation.

That is not a popular argument. Academicians, politicians, and jour nalists tend to view the indifference

or nonengagement of the elec torate as a crisis. They are looking

3 4 THE BROOKINGS REVIEW

This content downloaded from 206.224.223.244 on Sun, 08 Jul 2018 19:07:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

for causes, and one of the suspects I is the press.

Professor Thomas Leonard, a student of the media’s influence on

the Progressive Movement, con cluded that the work of the muck

rakers was a major factor in the de cline of political activism in that era. “It was,” he wrote, “the dis crediting of some basic assumptions about how democracy worked that made muckraking both shocking… and a message to pull back from political life.” He based this judg ment on circumstantial evidence, not academic science or research into the psyches of voters by pro fessional pollsters and psycholo gists. Those tools weren’t available then. In fact, the scholar Michael

Robinson tells us that as late as the

1960s “most political scientists clung to the theory of minimal consequences . . . which relegates television and all mass media to a I

If they are a problem, are the

media responsible for them

in one degree or another? position of relative impotence in shaping opinion and political be havior.”

That theory is now suspect as evidence accumulates that the me dia?television in particular?ex ert political power. In his doctoral dissertation in 1972, Robinson concluded that news and public affairs programs of the television networks were, in a broad sense, consistently propagandistic and sometimes malign. They evoked images of American politics “which are inordinately sinister

I and despairing,” causing the viewer to “turn against the social and po litical institutions involved, or against himself, [for] feeling unable to deal with a political system like this.”

More recent studies have reached similar conclusions: “neg ative” news stories and “negative” political ads create cynicism, drive people away from political partici pation, and often confuse them to such a degree that they refuse to vote or even read about politics I and government.

Keeping Politics in Perspective In pondering the implications of all this it is helpful to

maintain a proper perspective. The fact that there are villains in government and politics and that the press is often wayward is not proof that political and gov ernmental institutions are necessarily villainous or that journalists are always bad actors. That the American electorate includes many apathetic and politically ig norant people is not proof that the system is in termi nal decline. A hundred million people went to the polls in 1992. The 80-90 million who didn’t vote might very well have made a rational decision that they had little stake in the outcome.

A big ad in the Wall Street Journal last spring in formed readers that “Without legislation correcting the BIF/SAIF premium disparity, SAID’s deposit base will almost certainly decline to the point that SAIF premiums would not cover FICO interest pay ments, resulting in a FICO default as early as 1997.” What is the guy in the back row to make of that? It

is well to remember that while politics is central in the lives of the political class and in the professional lives of journalists, that is not the case with all of us.

As Austin Ranney wrote some years ago, “The fact is that for most Americans, politics is still far from be ing the most interesting and important thing in life.

To them, politics is usually boring, repetitious, and above all, largely irrelevant to the things that really matter in their lives, such as making friends, finding spouses, getting jobs, raising children, and having a good time.” So on election days, they may simply prefer to go fishing, secure in the knowledge, as An nie sings in her showstopper, the sun will come up tomorrow.

It is certainly true that many imperfections in our democracy remain despite the best and well-meaning efforts of reformers. It is also true that the media have,

I in a large sense, much to answer for. Their own cyn icism about politics and government has been infec tious and often destructive. Their failure to put things in perspective is perhaps their greatest sin. But we have and will survive all that. As we deplore the state of democracy it clears the mind to ask: compared with what and with whom?

We can profitably remember and apply to the gloomy speculations and fears about the future

Winston Churchill’s great message to his country in 1940. “We are waiting for the long-promised invasion. So are the fishes.”

FALL 1996

PHOTOGRAPGHS BY HAROLD FEINSTEM

3 5

This content downloaded from 206.224.223.244 on Sun, 08 Jul 2018 19:07:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

  • Contents
    • 32
    • 33
    • 34
    • 35
  • Issue Table of Contents
    • The Brookings Review, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Fall, 1996), pp. 1-48
      • Front Matter
      • Letters
        • School Choice: Where’s the Evidence? [p. 2-2]
        • School Choice: Meaningless without Good Schools [pp. 2, 48]
      • A Considered Opinion
        • Can Government Nurture Civic Life? [p. 3-3]
      • Election 1996: The Choices Ahead [pp. 4-5]
      • Promises Promises: The Elusive Search for Faster Economic Growth [pp. 6-9]
      • The Budget Meets the Boomers: America’s Most Famous Generation Approaches Another Milestone [pp. 10-13]
      • Problems of Predominance: Implications of the U. S. Military Advantage [pp. 14-17]
      • New Mothers, Not Married: Technology Shock, the Demise of Shotgun Marriage, and the Increase in Out-of-Wedlock Births [pp. 18-21]
      • Uncle Sam in the Housing Market the Section 8 Rental Subsidy Disaster [pp. 22-25]
      • Forecasting the Presidential Election: What Can We Learn from the Models? [pp. 26-31]
      • The Alienated American Voter: Are the News Media to Blame? [pp. 32-35]
      • The Disappearing Political Center: Congress and the Incredible Shrinking Middle [pp. 36-39]
      • Too Close to Call: A Roundtable Discussion of the 1996 Congressional Elections [pp. 40-44]
      • World Watch
        • The Gulf War Party’s Over [p. 45-45]
      • Economy Watch
        • Low Inflation or No Inflation? [p. 46-46]
      • Politics Watch
        • America’s Other ValuJets [p. 47-47]
      • Letters
        • The Pentagon: Not One Penny for Corporate Mergers [p. 48-48]
        • Defense Restructuring: We All Win [p. 48-48]
      • Correction: Semiconductors and Managed Trade [p. 48-48]
      • Back Matter

Comments are closed.