“The presidency basks in the limelight of publicity at all times while congress waits in the shadows…the television age has permanently altered the balance of political power, making the president dominant and the legislature inferior.” - Doris Graber
Significant differences exist between the amount of coverage the media dedicates to covering news about the President of the United States and news about our Congress. The difference in coverage can be seen at the national and local state and city level. The national level rarely even mentions congress, and while the local news does allot some time for congressional news, it too is made up predominately of political news that focuses solely on the President and his staff. This choice by the media to not cover much of what Congress does is not by accident. The media chooses to cover other aspects of our political system since the President is a better media target, daily aspects of the Congress are boring, and Congress is not concerned with acting in a way that interests the National audience.
The President of the United States is a much better media target than the members of congress individually or as a whole. The television camera not only has a much easier time focusing on one familiar face, the audience can relate to and follow the story of one man easier than many. The media assumes that the average American affected by the media will not be able to keep track of 535 members of Congress, let alone care. This is assumption by the media is correct.
Now, I am not insinuating that the American people do not or should not care about the government’s inner workings. It is vitally important that the citizens of a state understand the legislative process and keep up to date on its progress. In 1835 Alexis Detoqueville wrote, “The American learns to know the laws by participating in the act of legislation; and he takes a lesson in the forms of government from governing. The great work of society is ever going on beneath his eyes…” (Dennis 15). Important as it may be, when the story of legislative process is told through the media, it is difficult to follow and grasp the entire process. When Americans are ever subject to receiving their news in small segments of information separated by pundit’s opinions and flashy commercials, it is quite difficult to be a part of the process. Detoqueville’s quote explains that Americans understand the legislative process by participating in it. It is very difficult to participate in a topic when only small and flashy bits, handpicked by editors, are shown to you.
It is easy to see that the consumers of the media’s product are easily drawn to and interested in a branch of government lead by one person rather than a branch run by 535. This difference between the popularity of media coverage is not limited to the American public’s ability to focus on one person. This difference also has to do with the media’s draw towards popularity issues within a branch driven by national popularity and the ability to blame or reward one person for the results of the branch.
The Nation as a whole can easily find interest in a popularity race that involves everyone within the Nation. The Executive branch displays this popularity based drive within the media best during elections. When journalists report on Presidential election races, they often focus more on a horse race style of who is in the lead rather than cover important issues about the candidates themselves (Arnold 177). Reporting on the candidate’s stance and record on political issues runs the risk of reporting to an audience ignorant on the issues at hand. If the audience doesn’t understand the significance of the respective stances, they are not likely to watch or read a report on them.
When an organization is lead by one person that person is ultimately responsible for everything the organization does or fails to do. When good news, or more important to media, bad news breaks, the media loves to have a face to show along with the story. Whether the legislative branch is success or a failure, it is difficult to hold 535 people accountable. Even if the media wanted to cover all 535 members, they couldn’t. The typical representative doesn’t even appear once a year on the National News Networks, USA Today, or Newsweek (Cook 60).
The group that makes up the legislative branch may benefit from appearing as a mass and therefore reducing blame on any one person, but it can also hurt the branch as well. Without one person able to step up and speak for the legislative branch, it suffers in National opinion. When the public sees many leaders in the legislative branch such as the Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and Committee Leaders, it is difficult for the American public to get an accurate opinion on Congress if a positive or negative story is reported on about just one of these leaders.
Although there is not one voice for Congress, some exceptions have existed. The media has opted to cover legislators that present sound bites and news clips that can be covered in an entertaining way. Certain members that stand out of the crowd, such as Newt Gingrich and Ted Kennedy, have become household names (Arnold 2). Newt Gingrich specifically chose to cater to the media so that changes could be made in Congress. Gingrich decided to appeal to the American people by adopting an attitude that could be easily covered by the media. It required Gingrich to filter through his plans and pull out what he thought made for a newsworthy story so that he would get the coverage he wanted. In USA Today, Newt Gingrich said, “Part of the reason I use strong language is because you all will pick it up… You convince your colleagues to cover me being calm, and I’ll be calm. You guys want to cover nine seconds, I’ll give you nine seconds, because that is the competitive requirement… I’ve simply tried to learn my half of your business”.
Gingrich was right, the media is a business. And as such requires ratings based on consumer loyalty and attention. If, when flipping through the television channels of the pages of a newspaper, the common American sees a picture and a quote of some unknown State Representative, they are likely to move on. If that same average American, however, is passing through the same media sources and finds a familiar picture and quote from the President of the United States, they are more likely to pause and show interest. The media relies on drawing customers from a large pool of news sources. If they can gain viewers by appealing to American’s comfort in familiarity, their business succeeds. Any media outlet that thrives strictly on providing an accurate look into the legislative process instead of flashy headlines and pictures will fail. Just how often is CSPAN watched compared to a major news outlet? Well, the world will never know as CSPAN is not subject to the same telecommunication ratings as other channels.
Even if Congress decided to work on making their daily activities more exciting, the sheer mass of projects would be overwhelming to most consumers. In the legislative branch, there are many activities going on all at once. No one media outlet out there could cover all of those activities, let alone cover them in such a way that was entertaining. So, the choice of what topics are newsworthy would be left back in the hands of the editor.
The decision of what is newsworthy by the editor is a great influence on what information the American people receive. This information sways public opinion, and in some cases, creates it. Once one network or news agency decides something is news, the other networks need to catch up. After all, no network wants to be the only one that didn’t cover a story. In the late 80’s, evening news broadcasters paid attention to what the respected newspapers deemed newsworthy. One main network anchorman explained, “You start out with an idea of the story of the day… by looking at the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, USA Today. I guess I read five papers every day. I get the Post at home and it’s the first thing I see, so it shapes my impression of what might be the flow of news today. I look at how we might move the story farther down the road, beyond where it’s already been” (Cook 48).
One event labeled as news influences another, and only the sensational topics are covered. This keeps the news short and interesting to the consumer, but it also promotes sensationalism among politicians that want to be seen. Zell Miller’s impassioned speech against Senator Kerry during the 2004 Presidential campaign gained lots attention. Imagine the opinions of other Senators that were upstaged by Zel Miller’s. Imagine how many decisions are made by the legislative branch during a Presidential race that are not covered. The American people may care that they are not getting the full story, but Congress is not.
The fact that floor speeches, committee meetings, or debating the details of bills are not exciting is not of much consequence to Senators. The legislative process is, by design, time consuming, arduous, and unglamorous. This intentional design prevents rapid change when needed, but it also prevents a bad idea from being passed without being checked. A much smoother process for enacting new legislation would involve a system where an elite could simply make a decision for America and change policy immediately. Although much faster, a system such as described would be prone to corruption. This corruption is prevented in our government by splitting the law making body into two houses of dissimilar representation of America. A smooth talking Senator can affect change, but not without the review of his peers and Representatives of the American people. That review process does not appeal to the American public when watching television… it is too long and too hard to follow.
Even if there was a demand from an interested American to follow this process, it would be difficult given the media’s preferred medium. It has already been established that the majority of Americans get their news from and the media prefers to deliver the news via television. A great deal of patience and attention would be required by a interested public in order to follow this process on the media. Breaking a process that is long and arduous down into small and entertaining chunks will not work well for the media. The events and details that would be required to effectively tell each path through the process will not be shared due to this structural bias of the media.
This structural bias in the media is not limited by the media’s need to break each story down into small, entertaining and digestible chunks. The media tends to focus on a structure that allows for a summary of each story. When the newscasters don’t have an answer for the outcome of any situation, they tend to speculate. This leads the consumers of media to only be informed on matters that are already over and that interest them. According to unidentified House members in 1978, “[t]here isn’t one voter in 20,000 who knows my voting record… except on that one thing that affects him” and “Only a few discerning people know my voting record. But it is, of course, the voter dissatisfied with ‘the one thing that affects him’ or the ‘few discerning people’ that will press for explanations” (Hutchings 13). If the product is only based on what was exciting and it is reported after the process is finished, this leaves little room for the American public to have any influence on the process.
Note that the news about Congress is not necessarily boring. Following the process of each part of Congress is, however, and is therefore not reported. What is reported are the highlights of brief moments after they have already happened. So, daily aspects of the Congress are boring, what is seen on television though, may not be.
Looking back to the possibility of Congressional members being interested in appealing to the general public reveals another problem. Congress is not concerned with appealing to the nation as a whole. The fact that some poll may show extreme disapproval from the American public of one Senator or Representative is of no consequence to that Senator or Representative. As long as their district or State supports them, the rest of America could hate them. They are not elected by the nation as the President is and they know it.
The entire nation elects the President and as such is more interested in news about the President on television. As long as a Senator or Representative can appeal to his or her constituents, and convince them that they are helping them fight against the ‘system’, they maintain their voting base. They are only required to be involved in something exciting or newsworthy every so often as to be mentioned by the media often enough to be remembered by the media’s viewers. These actions to only stick their neck out long enough to gain attention with their constituents, are rational. If the member of Congress can convince their constituents that they are fighting for them, they build trust with them. This trust is crucial within the member’s home district or state when it comes time for re-election (Lipinski 20).
A media aware Congress promotes a news media that differs greatly from the President in its coverage. Neither the National media nor Congress need each other. Congress can’t gain or be hurt by national coverage and the media can not gain ratings by covering information of little consequence to its national viewers. Because of this, local media is much more important to Congress. The local media attention is best for Congress not only because it reports to those that can actually hold the Congressional members accountable, it is also less critical. The local media reports in a more personal and human interest driven style since the Congressional members are most likely members of the community themselves.
The media chooses not to cover the daily events of Congress since the President is a better media target, daily aspects of the Congress are boring, and Congress is not concerned with acting in a way that interests the National audience. Instead of blaming the media for problems transferring information to the public, it may be better to look at why they are reporting the way they do. We, the consumers of this media drive the results. If we are not concerned with Congress, we will not be bothered with stories about Congress. If we continue to hold the President responsible for every aspect of our Nation, the media will continue to feed that opinion. After all, if the media source does not appeal to our pre-judgments about daily life, we will not support the media. We will turn to a channel which appeals to us, we will cancel a newspaper subscription that is boring or biased against our views, and we will read entertainment magazines if the news magazines do not provide that entertainment.
WORKS CITED
Dennis, Everette E. and Robert W. Snyder. Covering Congress. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1998.
Vinson, Danielle. Local Media Coverage of Congress and its Members: Through Local Eyes. New Jersey: Hampton Press, 2002.
Arnold, Douglas. Congress, the Press, and Political Accountability. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2006.
Lipinski, Daniel. Congressional Communication: Content and Consequences. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2004.
Cook, Timothy E. Making Laws and Making News. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1989.
Hutchings, Vincent. Public Opinion and Democratic Accountability: How Citizens Learn About Politics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003.
