* Adapted from Hannah Meisel’s short essay published in the Dec. 2021 edition of the Illinois News Broadcasters Association newsletter…
It’s been an exhausting couple of years, if I’m honest. I’m sure that’s a sentiment INBA members share.
Between a pandemic and the 2020 election, misinformation took on new heights. Then the Jan. 6 insurrection happened. Then the General Assembly’s monumental spring session in Springfield that stretched from longtime House Speaker Mike Madigan’s “exit stage left” moment at the start of the year all through the summer as a stalemate over massive energy and climate change legislation.
Can’t forget a jam-packed Veto Session and a long fight over legislative redistricting (which, as I write this, is finally coming to a close this month). All the while, it’s been surreal watching conspiracy theories get into the mainstream, whether they’re about election fraud, the COVID vaccine or everything else in between.
Which takes us back to yet another election year. 2022 may be a cycle unlike we’ve ever seen before. That means reporters (and editors, producers, news directors, etc) regardless of medium should be thinking very deeply about how to approach coverage.
We have lofty ideas about the journalism we want to do — journalism that holds powerful people and government actors to account. But because of the realities of ever-shrinking newsrooms and the demands of the news cycle, we often fall far short of those goals, instead parroting the official line via a rewritten press release, or amplifying messages that are false at best in the name of “objectivity” and “hearing both sides.”
And yes, I get it; sometimes a plug-and-play story seems like all you can manage some days in the face of ever-increasing workloads and growing hostility from the public. But in 2022, I’m asking all of us to step up in our newsrooms and initiate tough conversations about how to achieve better, more nuanced coverage — the type that’s actually fair, rather than the cheapened version of fairness we sometimes settle for.
How will that work? Here are two ideas I’m thinking about before hitting the campaign trail. Yes, the political mood of the country matters. It’s inescapable. In many ways, the media industry bears a lot of responsibility here. But let’s be mindful about how we report on issues that fall under the (incredibly stupid) label of “culture wars.”
Let’s ask questions and frame stories searching for accountability. If a candidate redirects a question to blame the other party, don’t be afraid to ask it again. Ask about how they’ll bear responsibility for building a better politics, both as a candidate and as an elected official. Let’s serve our audience by giving context and nuance about the political battle de jour, instead of letting our interview subjects direct the stories with inflammatory quotes.
Second, one of my personal goals for 2022 is covering politics in a way that reconnects it to the business of governing. After all, that’s what people are supposed to get into politics wanting to do, right?
Ask how candidates plan to deliver for their district (or whatever constituency applies here). Let’s focus on real, tangible things: Funding for needed projects. Oversight where things have gone wrong. Investing in programs that would actually make a difference for our corner of the state. Or willingness to pull the plug on those that have become expensive fiefdoms that no longer resemble their stated purpose.
Sure, we have to spend time on the high-level politics that colors our world; we’d be doing a disservice to our audience if we didn’t use our platforms for analysis.
But let’s spend more time in 2022 reconnecting politics to governing, which in turn reconnects our audience to our coverage in ways that serve them better than throwing more gasoline on the fire. Because if we continue on this same path with our heads in the sand, that fire is likely to consume us.
- Middle Way - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 2:14 pm:
Amen. This is a very thoughtful piece that explains how the media can help lead us back to a politics of substance.
- Former Illinoisan - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 2:16 pm:
While I wholeheartedly agree with Hannah’s take - news orgs have got to invest more money in their people. Tough to ask more from an MMJ or producer in Springfield making $30k (or less) a year.
- Name/Nickname - May soon be required - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 2:21 pm:
Much needed message. Politics–and political coverage–has turned into the movie ‘Mean Girls’ in the age of social media.
- Panther Pride - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 2:23 pm:
She’s one of the best around for a reason, and this essay is yet another example of that.
- NonAFSCMEStateEmployeeFromChatham - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 2:33 pm:
==news orgs have got to invest more money in their people. Tough to ask more from an MMJ or producer in Springfield making $30k (or less) a year.==
Not to mention when the same formentioned city has a newspaper owned by a cheaply run hedge fund (Gatehouse) and its major TV station owned by slimy cheapskate owners (Sinclair). As well as an alternative paper that fired the best investigative reporter in town last summer.
- Give Me A Break - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 2:34 pm:
Hannah be should teaching journalism classes at UIS. As Panther said she’s one of the best around.
I showed an intern a Blue Book from the early 90s to illustrate what the Statehouse Press Corp once looked like in terms of size. They couldn’t believe how many people covered state government.
There were members of the press corp who often knew has much about bills in committee as the bill’s sponsors did. And they knew how to craft the story about the bill in way the “folks back home” understood and saw how it impacted their lives.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 2:39 pm:
Great essay from a great journalist.
- Give Us Barabbas - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 2:50 pm:
What I see in the media landscape:
Short-cuts everywhere: I’ve seen press conferences where nobody asks the Governor a question, and that’s not new with this administration. The stations don’t send out a reporter, only a camera operator, and they don’t allow camera operators to ask questions. So you’re getting a spray of 15 seconds of b-roll while someone back at the studio does rip-and-read from a supplied press release. That’s not coverage.
Secondly, lazy coverage of “process stories”, stories about horse races and not the actual stakes of the legislation or the election being covered. You shouldn’t be covering government and civiv news the same as sports. heck, if anything these days, they spend more energy detailing high schools sports stories than the government beat stories.
Third, is the emphasis on using news footage not for reporting something that day, but as future b-roll for campaign spots and collateral media. Too often some reporter is asking highly leading questions, just to create a future pull quote to use in campaign media. It’s all a big kabuki dance and is it any wonder the general public has no time for the empty calories they are being provided in this so-called local “news” coverage?
It should be less about confirming viewer biases and assumptions, and about setting them straight o the actual ground truths.
But Sinclair reporters aren’t paid to do that.
- Pundent - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 2:59 pm:
We have to get back to the substance of what’s being said and not who’s saying it. And that advice applies to not only the media but those consuming their product.
- Homebody - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 3:05 pm:
She is completely correct. Every article that focuses on the the horserace aspect of elections, or frames everything in terms of “will this help or hurt Pritzker/Biden/etc” is making American political discourse worse.
Many members of the media (certainly not all, but too many) are contributing to turning politics into a team sport about who is winning or losing, and not about the concrete effects the decisions being made by people in power have on everybody else.
Media absolutely HAS to test the statements being made by politicians (of all parties and persuasions) and not just uncritically report that such and such a person said a thing with no follow up sentence about whether that person was actually telling the truth, or whether their public statements match their actual actions.
- walker - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 3:11 pm:
I Love the approach Meisel is recommending. It’s practical and doable. This is one of many reasons she’s so respected.
I try to answer political/policy questions with goals, and how we’re likely to get there from a governing perspective. That’s why I’ve always loved town hall and small group settings,
The challenge with a short press interaction is that such detailed responses are often boring to the average reader and editor. Pols, campaign staff, (as well as many reporters) are too often looking for the pithy sound bite. Something that can make a catchy headline, regardless of substance.
There are also short-term expectations of government getting in the way. No one wanted to hear about the roughly 20-year plan to “fix” the pension systems, but here we are ten years later, possibly halfway there.
- Abdon - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 3:20 pm:
Very well said, Hannah
- huh? - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 3:24 pm:
I listen to all the reporter roundtables, many of which Hannah sits on. We could use more of this energy on those roundtables because they’re basically all an echo chamber of the worst takes on the political horse race with no context for how this matters for the people politicians aim to serve.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 3:27 pm:
==Media absolutely HAS to test the statements being made by politicians (of all parties and persuasions) and not just uncritically report that such and such a person said a thing with no follow up sentence about whether that person was actually telling the truth, or whether their public statements match their actual actions. ==
My thoughts as well. Not presented as “gotcha journalism” but as a sincere comparison of what is said to the record and actions. If there is disagreement between words and actions, the person should be contacted and provided an opportunity to clarify. And, changing your mind or policy approach should not be seen as a bad thing, people evolve, but asking for an explanation of that evolution is a fair question.
- Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 3:31 pm:
Great essay, but realistically its not going to happen. Many “political reporters” are more interested in the hit-piece style of reporting rather than reporting the truth. I guess it sells more papers to prop up a “hero” or tear down a “villain” than to be objective, thoughtful and fair. Or maybe the subscribers are too dumb to understand the nuanced reporting that Hannah speaks of. In any event, I have no confidence that anything will change.
- Jane - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 3:50 pm:
==Ask how candidates plan to deliver for their district (or whatever constituency applies here).==
Until the $200 hammer Oppo Dump hits…
Didn’t the media make earmarks appear so unseemly that they were discarded in DC for a while?
- Emmerder - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 4:17 pm:
There’s nothing journalists love more than talking about themselves and how important they are.
- Smalls - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 4:35 pm:
Thank you for the well thought out essay Hannah. We should all strive for how we can make a difference in this state.
- jimbo26 - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 4:39 pm:
Hannah is what the SJ-R and many other newspapers used to be. I hope her cohort takes her advice.
Bet you could sell more papers if they did.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 5:03 pm:
Hannah is totally on point. I wish this would happen.
- btowntruth from forgottonia - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 5:14 pm:
Providing the quality of reporters and journalism that what she wants would require would cost money.
Companies that run our media outlets in our area don’t want to spend it.
Until that changes and they want to emphasize things like reporting on local governments and deeper reporting and better local reporting nothing changes.
We will continue to get soundbites and lazy reporting unless it’s from the dwindling number of outlets and quality reporters who do what they can.
- John O'Connor - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 5:33 pm:
Reminds me of Ray Long of the Chicago Tribune in 2002, irritating then-gubernatorial candidate Jim Ryan by repeating the question.
Ryan: “Ray, you can ask it 100 times … ”
Long: “Then I’ve got 95 more to go.
- Candy Dogood - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 6:07 pm:
Hannah Meisel is describing the kind of approach we need in journalism. Simply repeating a press release or publishing it verbatim is not journalism and does not serve the public interest well. Make campaigns pay for commercials if they just want a mount piece.
It is irresponsible to let any office holder or candidate simply state their views unchallenged, especially when those views are not consistent with fact.
Bald face lies should not be published with the reputation of a network or masthead behind it. Fact does not need to be presented with a fictitious counterpoint. If a candidate doesn’t like sincere and probing coverage and stops being accessible, report on their lack of accessibility.
“So and so had a rally today, but we didn’t send anyone because they refuse to take questions from journalists and we believe our audience deserves better.”
- Levois J - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 7:03 pm:
I guess the question is what’s actually being done which is what I’m with. No more posturing and attacks on the other side just report the results or even the lack thereof and why.
- VMG - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 7:25 pm:
Hannah’s Jerry McGuire moment!!!
I also agree that media has a responsibility of reporting truth and a) not become the story (insert Chris Cuomo types) and b) not give over-coverage to an inflammatory candidate (insert Trump’s first campaign).
Thanks for saying it.
- Juvenal - Wednesday, Jan 26, 22 @ 9:50 pm:
Great stuff from Hannah, i would add this: journalists should not shy away from truthfulness in favor of quotes.
If you ask someone a question, and instead of answering the question they give you an off-topic soundbite, just say “That’s really interesting, but you didn’t really answer the question. Do you want me to write ‘Couldn’t answer/failed to answer/refused to answer’ or would you like me to repeat the question and give you another crack?”
Never forget that the candidate’s job is to trick you into printing a quote that gets them votes, and your job is to get information for your audience. Getting their message out is not your job, and if their message does not overlap with the information you think your audience needs, that’s their problem not yours.
It is called “earned media” for a reason, make them earn it, and if they can’t earn it, make them buy it.
- NonAFSCMEStateEmployeeFromChatham - Thursday, Jan 27, 22 @ 8:15 am:
==You shouldn’t be covering government and civiv news the same as sports. heck, if anything these days, they spend more energy detailing high schools sports stories than the government beat stories.==
Or it’s even worse. Newspapers and “news shows” being more interested in covering entertainment news (e.g., Kardashians, people voted off the prevoius nights American Idol or Dancing with the Stars), and restaurant news, than serious government stuff and investigative journalism. Morning network news shows are unwatchable to those who desire hard core news (e.g., GMA, Today) for too much emphasis on entertainment and Fluff rather than serious news.
- Hannibal Lecter - Thursday, Jan 27, 22 @ 8:47 am:
=== Morning network news shows are unwatchable to those who desire hard core news (e.g., GMA, Today) for too much emphasis on entertainment and Fluff rather than serious news. ===
There are more people that prefer the entertainment fluff than the actual news. That’s why there is more of a focus on it.
- NorthsideNoMore - Thursday, Jan 27, 22 @ 10:13 am:
Good piece of writing and I could not agree more. Park your personal politics at the professional journalistic door, keep office holders accountable to the people and ensure they do the job they were elected to do.