Breaking News v. News That Matters

An election is not a horse race

Photo by Luis Cortés on Unsplash

“Live from Washington. Breaking News.”  I lunged for the radio – my phone -- and silenced it. The program I’d been listening to had ended, and the network defaulted to its hourly update.  

I’m not much interested in “breaking news,” unless it’s a tornado warning or an active shooter. That kind of story begins “We interrupt this program . . .”

In contrast, so called “breaking news” means “We have to tell you something every hour, so here’s what we’ve got.”  

Years ago the example was Henry Kissinger:

·       9am    “Kissinger’s plane for China has just taken off.” 

·       10am: “Kissinger’s plane is speeding toward China.” 

·       11am: “Kissinger is two hours into his flight.”

·       Ad infinitum

Current version:

·      9am       Jury selection for Trump’s trial will start today

·      10am    Jury selection about to start

·      11am    First juror candidate being questioned

·      Ad nauseam

I’m not interested. I do care about what’s happening in the world, but early reports are always sketchy. About Trump’s trials, the verdicts are what matter, and I’d rather wait than speculate.

I curate my news input. From radio and television programs I make playlists, and listen  at my leisure. For print news, I skim headlines but read only a few stories in full.

“Who’s Winning Now?”

American presidential campaigns have become the world’s greatest reality shows. They gear up immediately after the mid-terms, two years before the election. But they’re never not in gear: Michigan papers already speculate about Governor Whitmer running in 2028.

This year’s election season is unusual. Ordinarily at least one of the nominations is contested, primary after primary, until late spring. Coverage mirrors that of an NFL season, as contest after contest culminates in the Big Day. Before each primary, predictions proliferate; after it’s over, results are dissected. Who voted which way, and why? As the next battle looms, predictions again surge; in its aftermath, more analysis of results. And so on, for months. Switching sports metaphors, I  call that kind of reporting  horse-race coverage.

This year the nominations were settled early. Instead of speculation about who will run, we have (excessive) reporting about Trump’s trials. But coverage of those trials, and of almost everything else, is inflected by their possible consequences in November. The carnage in Gaza? It’s alienating young voters, and hurting Biden’s chances. State battles over abortion rights? No longer a winning issue for the GOP. And so on, for events around the world (war in Ukraine, trade with China) or here at home (immigration, inflation).  The lens of November 5 looms too large. All stories become part of the horse-race narrative: “What are the odds now?”

Beyond the Horse Race

It matters who wins. But what matters more is who should win. The job of journalism is to help us think through our vote. (Even though most of us are in no doubt about how to cast it.)

Attention to the big issues is essential, but it needs to go beyond the way the candidates frame the issues. NPR has done that for several weeks now about the crisis at the border: How does asylum work? Why does the crisis persist? What is life like for Border Patrol agents? For those trying to cross?  For the communities where they land? For the cabinet officer in charge?

Coverage of the candidates themselves also needs to go beyond what they say. What matters most is what they’ll do in office. What they say they’ll do is only partial evidence of that. Promises are campaign rhetoric, and even when sincere, are hard to keep.

More relevant is what they did when they had the chance. Uniquely this year, each candidate has had a term in office. Much of what they did, has faded from memory. In a recent survey voters were asked what one thing they remembered from Trump’s administration. The answers tended to be generic and beside the point: “Economy was in better shape,” although presidents have little direct effect on the economy. (Researchers say answers about the past are usually shaped by current concerns.) Few mentioned Covid, few mentioned January 6. On immigration, supporters mentioned the wall he tried to build. Opponents remembered children in cages. Does anyone remember his “Day 1” effort to block all Muslims at our airports? Or Operation Warp Speed and the vaccine it produced, rejected by his followers but saving millions of lives?

Some of what Biden has done has been forgotten, too. And some of it was never really understood. The rushed withdrawal from Afghanistan is forgotten; his complicated climate record little recognized. The “Inflation Reduction Act,” for instance, had more to do with green energy than with inflation. The act gets passing mention, and only that, in stories about sustainable farming practices, or hydrogen as an energy source, or  the regulation of plastics. How many voters mentioned even one of these? Probably more know that he also approved Willow, a massive Alaskan oil drilling project.

We need to be reminded of each man’s full record. But how? Perhaps after the conventions, when the nominations are official, coverage will gain depth. If so, though, I’m afraid it will be occasional. “Horse-race” reporting  will continue to dominate. “Breaking news” will continue to train our attention onto trivia.

Ideas? I so want to stop lunging for my phone.