Conor Friedersdorf has been writing lately about ways that political reporting could be improved, and I'll probably have more to say about some of his specific ideas later.
One thing that I think is fairly safe to say is that overall we get too much analysis, and too little great story-telling. Now, obviously I say this as one who is contributing to the glut of analysis, so it's a fair call to say that my own perspective is not exactly that of a typical reader. And I'm of course a huge fan of a lot of the analysis that's out there.
But far too much initial political reporting, in my view at least, is dedicated to proving that various stories matter. My reaction? Great political stories don't need to "matter" to be great stories, and they certainly don't need to matter beyond what they are. That is, the House special election today in NY-26 is a great story even if it doesn't signal anything about what will happen in 2012, or what will happen to Paul Ryan's Medicare plan, or anything else beyond who will represent the folks of New York's 26th congressional district in the House of Representatives for the rest of the 112th Congress. I mean, you have all sorts of stuff: a resignation in disgrace, the effects of a major national issue on a specific local election, a goofball third party candidate, scrambling by national parties to get involved, a candidate who (I found out today) doesn't even live in the district but could still win, and then whatever local flavor you can add to that...it's a terrific story. It shouldn't, at least in the first instance, only be treated as important because of What It Can Tell Us about other things.
Same point about presidential elections. Look, I'll argue forever that only Romney and Pawlenty, among the current fully active GOP candidates, have a decent chance of being nominated. But several of the other candidates are great stories -- and to tell those stories, reporters shouldn't feel obliged to force them into a context of What It Means or make implausible arguments about a mythical Garry Johnson surge or how Herman Cain really could win after all.
And of course analysis is important too; someone needs to point out that Johnson and Cain aren't going to win. That's an important part of news coverage. But in my view at least, there's just not enough appreciate for stories-as-stories.
"Analysis" should be based on thoughtful and rigorous understanding of the data. What passes for much political analysis is simply storytelling - often just repeating or paraphrasing the spin being put out by candidates and others. It would be helpful to have more real analysis and fewer analysts who are really story tellers.
ReplyDelete"But in my view at least, there's just not enough appreciate for stories-as-stories."
ReplyDeleteI did a little dance when I read this, I agree completely. Sometimes telling stories is great. But what about all the bullshitters passing off uninteresting storytelling as analysis? First comment is not trite bullshit but:
"It would be helpful to have more real analysis and fewer analysts who are really story tellers."
Good day of internet politics so far. To actually add to the discussion, I think there needs to be a blog/paper/show that does this. I wouldn't want it integrated into normal blogs or shows that are currently based on pseudoanalysis. I think if Fareed Zakaria started doing "stories as stories" I'd chew on a revolver, but a blog "Cool shit in politics" would be welcome
Can you recommend any good places to find these new political stories, well-told and unencumbered by analysis? Where should we look?
ReplyDeleteVery well put. So much of the mainstream 2012 coverage is stale and repetitious -- and so obvious that it hardly deserves being called "analysis." Just how many times do we need to be reminded that Romney is the frontrunner and Palin is a wildcard...? If I remember correctly, the NY Times' story of the first debate talked more about Romney than anyone who actually took part in the event. The AP didn’t even bother to cover it. When it comes to political coverage, the narrative now overshadows the news.
ReplyDelete"Can you recommend any good places to find these new political stories, well-told and unencumbered by analysis? Where should we look?"
ReplyDeleteThe New Yorker. Writers like Steve Coll, David Grann, and Lawrence Wright are excellent at this sort of thing. All of the recent Bin Laden and AfPak coverage has been especially worth reading.
David Grann's recent piece on the murder of Rodrigo Rosenberg in Guatemala is one of the best I've ever read: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/04/110404fa_fact_grann