Pack journalism produces political tales of woe

0 Comments | Insight on the News, Feb 26, 1996 | by Susan Crabtree

As the field begins to narrow in the race for the White House, a swarm of reporters is circling the remaining candidates, targeting weaknesses and tracking their various movements on the campaign trail.

Opponents of Steve Forbes complain that he has succeeded Colin Powell as the latest "beneficiary" of this pack-journalism adulation. His public-approval ratings have soared. But "did `the pack' cause his incredible ascension to competitor status?" wonders Richard Noyes, political-studies director at the Washington-based Center for Media and Public Affairs.

The unbridled power of the press to be both kingmaker and asassin has troubled media critics in recent years. In his book, Feeding Frenzy: How Attack Journalism has Transformed American Politics, University of Virginia political-science professor Larry Sabato bemoans the predatory instinct of reporters who seem collectively and compulsively to attack the same prey. He and other media critics worry that significant, systematic scandals sometimes go unreported while the pack devotes ruthless energy to some more fashionable story of the moment.

"We've gone from lapdog journalism to watchdog journalism to junk-yard-dog journalism," Sabato remarked when he released the first edition of his book in August 1991, arguing that the press should have stopped at the second stage.

Pack journalism has a long history in political life. President Theodore Roosevelt railed against the muckrakers, journalists such as Upton Sinclair and Ida M. Tarbell, who supposedly would churn the sewers in search of a story of government or business corruption. Media critics believe the pace of journalists' mass attacks recently has become even more frenetic. They hold that, since the 1970s, reporters emboldened by their investigations into Vietnam and Watergate have assaulted politicians at whim on sometimes unsubstantiated charges.

In the cynical post-Watergate era the line between private and public life quickly blurred. Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones continue to plague President Clinton, and a slew of allegations have haunted other politicians. Reports of Gary Hart's infidelity prompted him to drop out of the 1988 Democratic prlrnary. Michael Dukakis suffered under heavy coverage of a nonexistent psychiatric problem, and the press circulated unsubstantiated allegations of Richard Nixon's and George Bush's extramarital affairs.

In 1840, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, "Nothing but a newspaper can drop the same thought into a thousand minds at the same moment." The power of journalistic enterprise has compounded in the modern age with proliferation of syndicated radio-talk shows, cable TV stations and electronic outlets such as the World Wide Web that can reach millions simultaneously.

Ironically, media critics say, increased competition and the instantaneous nature of television have served to exacerbate the pack-journalism phenomenon. In their attempt to capture the latest and most conclusive information, reporters often put their own spin on what other publications and broadcasts have deemed newsworthy.

When reporters rely on previous accounts of an event, misinformation and inaccuracies abound. Within hours of the Oklahoma City bombing last year, most network-news reports featured experts on Middle Eastern terrorism who speculated on the causes of the blast and drew parallels to the 1993 World Thade Center bombing. "A U.S. govermnent source has told CBS News that it has Middle East terrorism written all over it," declared Connie Chung before Timothy McVeigh, the Army veteran associated with militia groups, was charged with the crime.

"The accuracy of the news is inversely proportional to the number of reporters covering the event," asserts Thomas Patterson, a political-science professor at Syracuse University and author of the book Out of Order, which chronicles several media mishaps. The aggregate effect of such shoddy journalism risks public distrust of the First Amendment and the power of the press to act as a fourth estate.

Constant attacks on the integrity of candidates also have raised the price of political participation and have discouraged talented people from running for public office. According to Sabato, the only candidates willing to endure the media's constant attacks are either "naivel," "ideologically driven crusaders," "psychologically imbalanced" or "uncreative contenders whose lack of vision is matched only by their dullness."

If the press would like to restore confidence in its professionalism, he advises, "journalists and journalism must feed less at frenzies and more at the table of fairness and civility."