{"id":5005,"date":"2006-07-12T20:00:28","date_gmt":"2006-07-12T20:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=5005"},"modified":"2006-07-12T20:00:28","modified_gmt":"2006-07-12T20:00:28","slug":"box-score-political-reporting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=5005","title":{"rendered":"box score political reporting"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>One of the standard clich?s of journalism is the treatment of political news as if it were a sport. Each event is described as a victory or a defeat for a particular politician. For instance, here&#8217;s how the two papers that I read over breakfast this morning reported the latest Administration policy on prisoners:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2006\/07\/12\/washington\/12gitmo.html\">The New York Times:<\/a> The new policy &#8220;reverses a position the White House had held since shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, and it represents a victory for those within the administration who argued that the United States&#8217; refusal to extend Geneva protections to Qaeda prisoners was harming the country&#8217;s standing abroad.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2006\/07\/11\/AR2006071100094.html\">The Washington Post:<\/a> &#8220;The developments underscored how the administration has been forced to retreat from its long-standing position.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The Administration&#8217;s change of position was a defeat: that&#8217;s a fact. And it&#8217;s undeniable (almost tautological) that the shift was a &#8220;victory&#8221; for those who opposed the status quo. But reporters could choose many other facts to provide: for example, information about what has been done to various prisoners. The reliance on political wins and losses has the following serious drawbacks:<\/p>\n<p>1) It encourages laziness. You don&#8217;t have to do any actual reporting to figure out that an event is good or bad for a politician.<\/p>\n<p>2) It reinforces the notion that politics is a spectator sport, in which the important question is &#8220;Who&#8217;s winning?&#8221; (not, &#8220;What&#8217;s happening?&#8221;).<\/p>\n<p>3) It adds to the political cost that incumbents incur when they change course for good reasons. When George Bush found out that Abu Zubaydah, whom he had described as Al-Qaeda&#8217;s chief of operations, was mentally ill and of no consequence, he <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2006\/06\/19\/AR2006061901211_pf.html\">supposedly <\/a>told CIA Director George Tenet, &#8220;I said he was important. You&#8217;re not going to let me lose face on this, are you?&#8221; If that&#8217;s true, it&#8217;s evidence of almost criminal irresponsibility. But Bush also knew that if he changed his position, the press would report that as a sign of weakness&#8211;a &#8220;setback&#8221; or &#8220;defeat&#8221;&#8211;instead of allowing the president to take credit for learning. Reporting politics as a box-score only increases the odds that leaders will act like Bush.<\/p>\n<p>(In fairness, I should note that after I read this morning&#8217;s papers and decided to write this post, I looked around for other examples of box-score journalism on the prisoner issue. The AP, Reuters, and <em>L.A. Times<\/em> stories really did not use that frame.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>One of the standard clich?s of journalism is the treatment of political news as if it were a sport. Each event is described as a victory or a defeat for a particular politician. For instance, here&#8217;s how the two papers that I read over breakfast this morning reported the latest Administration policy on prisoners: The [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-press-criticism"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5005","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5005"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5005\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}