[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 28, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E35-E36]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE MEDIA

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 28, 1998

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, January 14, 1998 into the Congressional Record:

                        Reflections on the Media

       In recent decades, we've seen a dramatic drop in the number 
     of Americans who trust their government to do the right thing 
     most of the time. Many factors contribute to this, but one 
     often mentioned is the way in which many journalists approach 
     their craft today. There is increasing concern that 
     journalists too often report just the failures of government 
     and not the successes, just the scandals and not the 
     substance of governing. I am impressed with the number of 
     constituents who ask whether they can really believe what 
     they see and read in the media.
       The press, of course, plays an essential role in the 
     relationship between citizens and elected officials. We rely 
     on the press to inform citizens about government actions, to 
     help public officials gauge public opinion, and to act as a 
     watchdog. By deciding whether and how extensively events or 
     issues are covered, the press influences the policy agenda. I 
     worry sometimes that in this age of instantaneous 
     communication, journalists are less likely to reflect 
     carefully on the quality and impact of their coverage.
       I've always felt that journalists should ideally remain on 
     the sideline as observers and analysts. But today many of our 
     journalists, especially those based in Washington, want to be 
     policy players rather than reporters of events. They want to 
     give advice to the public and to prominent politicians, to 
     score political points rather than illuminate events. Too 
     often they reject the traditional values of the 
     journalist--detachment, skepticism, caution--that have 
     always been vital to the practice of good journalism.
       These journalists, like anyone who seeks to influence 
     opinion in this country, engage in intense competition to get 
     on television. Unfortunately, some political talk shows are 
     not much more than shouting matches. They do not analyze, 
     explain, or clarify the issues facing the country. One 
     panelist was quoted as saying, ``The less you know about 
     something, the better off you are.'' That may be true for 
     entertaining TV but it is not true for journalism. What makes 
     good television and what makes thoughtful analysis are two 
     different things.
       Journalists know that there's big money associated with 
     appearances on television, if not for the appearance fee 
     (which is usually quite modest), then for the opportunity 
     those appearances provide to garner lucrative speaking 
     engagements before groups of all kinds. My view is that their 
     considerable talents may be dissipated by this quest for 
     money and that the country is the poorer for it.
       It's easy to exaggerate the importance of these kinds of 
     journalists. Even the most popular talk shows do not get more 
     than 2 or 3 percent of TV households. Only a few people 
     follow them closely. But the desire of some journalists to 
     influence policy can have a troubling effect: the tendency to 
     cozy up to government officials or to tilt a story. I think 
     sometimes journalists pull punches rather than offend 
     powerful public officials. On the other hand, some reporters 
     go to the other extreme, viewing government officials and 
     their actions not with healthy skepticism, but with suspicion 
     or cynicism. The best reporters view them as neither 
     inherently dishonest nor inherently virtuous.
       Also worrisome is that in covering policy debates 
     journalists too often focus on the horse race--who is 
     winning--rather than on how we should deal in this country 
     with some very tough problems. Every public official gets 
     distressed by the electronic media reducing issues to sound 
     bites of a few seconds. All that does is encourage 
     shrillness, generalities and mutual attack rather than 
     informed and meaningful debate. In addition, the journalist 
     understands that the reporting of scandal will get him on the 
     front page much more quickly than the reporting of substance. 
     If journalism does not begin to pay more attention to 
     disinterested analysis, it will continue to lose credibility 
     with Americans. Certainly the ideal is the independent non-
     partisan, non-ideological journalist, a journalist who does 
     everything he can to filter out of his reporting his personal 
     political views.
       There are a lot of things I don't worry much about in 
     journalism. Some complain that the press has a liberal bias; 
     others see a conservative bias. Fortunately, we have multiple 
     sources of information and the competition among these 
     sources contributes to a self-correcting process. If a story 
     is reported badly by one source, other sources quickly set 
     the record straight. For the citizen willing to search for 
     it, substantive information about public policy is widely and 
     cheaply available from a large variety of sources.
       Despite its flaws, I favor a powerful press because it can 
     balance the power of government. I may complain about the 
     press on occasion, but I would not like the country without 
     it. The job of the press is formidable. We should not resent 
     but applaud the efforts reporters make to investigate and to 
     keep the record straight. Jefferson said, ``No government 
     ought to be without censors. And where the press is free none 
     ever will. The only security of all is a free press. The 
     agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary 
     to keep the waters pure.'' As Jefferson pointed out, it is 
     difficult to draw a clear line of separation between the 
     abuse and the wholesome use of the press. But because the 
     free press does have a high mission in a democratic society 
     it has to be all the more responsible to carry it out.
       The press has an obligation to ferret out scandal. It has 
     the obligation to cover contests for public affairs. It 
     should also report complex and serious policy issues 
     objectively, explaining the complexity of the issues involved 
     and the positions of various parties. Biased analysis may 
     have its place on the editorial pages but the news columns 
     should report the facts.
       What should government do about these criticisms? Nothing. 
     Justice Brennan said that press freedom should be, 
     ``uninhibited, robust, and wide open.'' He was right on the 
     mark. Government officials should not try to

[[Page E36]]

     shape the content of media coverage of politics. The media 
     can be the check on misconduct and tyranny by government, 
     expose public officials' errors and abuses, inform public 
     policy, and improve the quality of democracy. The problems 
     with the media should be dealt with by the media and the 
     people rather than the government.

     

                          ____________________