[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 28, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E240-E241]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE NATIONAL MEDIA

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 28, 1996

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, February 28, 1996, into the Congressional Record.

                           The National Media

       Public respect for the national media has fallen in recent 
     years. As the power of the media has shifted from local and 
     state newspapers to national networks, I find people 
     increasingly mistrustful of the media. Constituents ask 
     whether they can believe what they read or see. Or, as one 
     constituent asked, how can we know the truth? That's the most 
     fundamental question of all.
       American journalists have long had a reputation for 
     independence and integrity combined with hardnosed reporting 
     and sharp investigative skills. Americans have traditionally 
     looked to the media, particularly the national media, to get 
     basic factual information on national events. The national 
     media often put the spotlight on difficult problems and can 
     be an important force for change.
       That pattern is changing. There are still many outstanding 
     journalists today, and, at its best, American journalism can 
     be very good indeed. Nonetheless, I am impressed by how many 
     Americans are tuning out the national media, getting their 
     information instead from non-traditional sources, such as 
     talk radio and TV talk shows, tabloid newspapers or 
     television shows, or special interest publications. They 
     simply don't trust the national media anymore to give them 
     basic facts or unbiased reporting. They find alternative 
     media more accessible and more responsive to their concerns.


                            What has changed

       It is hard to say why the national press is held in lower 
     esteem today, but my suspicion is that many of its wounds 
     have been self-inflicted. Some journalists appear to have 
     trouble sorting out what's hot news and what's meaningful, 
     what's topical and what really has consequences for the 
     nation. My sense is that the press now seeks to shape public 
     attitudes more than it questions, examines and describes the 
     real world to the fullest extent possible.
       Journalists are trained to seek out facts, but increasingly 
     blur fact and opinion and infuse their stories with their 
     opinions rather than objective facts. It often seems there 
     are no reporters in Washington. That's an exaggeration, of 
     course, but it makes a point that many in the media today 
     seek to shape policy, rather than report the news. Many 
     Washington journalists are striving to be colorful 
     personalities. They want to get on the television talk shows. 
     They will often make bombastic arguments and predictions and 
     outrageous statements. What they do not exhibit is 
     professional detachment.
       Washington reporting has also become much more speculative, 
     less factual. There is just too much careless reporting, too 
     much cynicism, too much reliance on unnamed sources, too much 
     instant analysis, too much of an effort to entertain, not 
     enough effort to inform objectively.
       I am astonished at the number of times I have found that 
     journalists do not check facts, but simply write what they 
     first hear. I wonder whether reporters are scrupulously 
     accurate or whether they try to reshape a quote or ignore a 
     fact or concoct a source in order to make the point they want 
     to make. I have often had the experience of being interviewed 
     only to discover that the journalist had already made up his 
     mind about what to say in the piece, and was only searching 
     for a quote to buttress his view; or have attended an event 
     covered by the press, but find later what appears in print or 
     on television is not the way it was.
       The Washington media also show limited interest in 
     promoting informed debate on important issues. In so many of 
     the talk shows, squabbling and shouting matches replace 
     dialogue and discussion. There seems to be a premium on 
     fostering conflict rather than consensus, in encouraging 
     extremes and discouraging moderation. The press also loves to 
     report the misdeeds and the personal failings of public 
     figures.


                         reporting on politics

       Constituents ask overwhelmingly about the ``what'' of 
     politics: what are we going to do about the health care 
     system, what are we going to do to reform welfare. The 
     national media, in contrast, often seem to think of politics 
     as just a big game filled with players whose motive is to 
     win, and picking the winners and the losers becomes their 
     primary preoccupation. They see politics as a contest between 
     political leaders, not as a clash of 

[[Page E241]]
     ideas and proposals. They appear to have less to say about the 
     substance and little interest in the impact of legislation on 
     people's lives.
       My impression is the Washington press corps often shows a 
     lack of diligence, a follow-the-leader mentality. If one 
     journalist writes about a topic, everybody writes about it. 
     If one talks about it, everybody talks about it. If one 
     states a ``fact,'' others accept it without checking. I often 
     ask myself how many journalists out there think for 
     themselves.
       What worries me in all this (and other critics of the 
     media) is that the media suggest that politics is little more 
     than the struggle between ambitious politicians for power and 
     has less to do with how we as a country deal with the serious 
     problems confronting us. There are excellent members of the 
     national press corps, but there just seems to be a very large 
     gap between the way many journalists approach a story and the 
     way other people do.


                               conclusion

       One important role of journalism in this country is to try 
     to provide a common ground of knowledge and analysis, an 
     effort to clarify the national debate and link it to people 
     and their lives. The media in our society have a high mission 
     and bear the responsibility to carry it out.
       Fortunately, there is a self-correcting process in the 
     media. The competitive instinct is very strong among the 
     multiple sources of information and that sometimes leads to 
     excess and inaccuracies, but also contributes to a corrective 
     process whereby the facts eventually get out straight. If one 
     news outlet reports a story badly, other rival organizations 
     will try to set the record straight.
       The proliferation of alternative news sources may also be a 
     positive development. Some argue that the national press is 
     responding to competitive pressures from the tabloid media by 
     trying to imitate them, and this is certainly a concern. 
     Competition, however, may also force the mainstream media to 
     get back to basics--to do what they do best, namely solid 
     beat reporting and in-depth investigative pieces. There has 
     certainly been a trend in the regional press toward issue-
     oriented coverage of politics and news, and the national 
     media could learn from this positive development.

                          ____________________