By David Gordon, Associate Editor
[This story was updated on Oct. 8]
Political campaign coverage this year faces challenges that range from disinformation on social media to the need for news media to build trust with their audiences to the strong possibility that the presidential race outcome may not be known for at least several days after Nov. 3.
These were among the comments and opinions put forward Tuesday night by panelists discussing whether facts still matter in coverage of politics. Other topics that received attention included the impact of this election on redistricting the state, how the presidential race will affect contests lower on the ballot and the need to include diverse perspectives in political reporting.
Panelists at times agreed that they lacked answers to some of the questions they raised. The online discussion, which drew an audience of fewer than 20 people, was recorded and can be viewed at https://youtu.be/t69cquZ7s2c.
The program was scheduled as the local observance of News Engagement Day, which is intended to get people of all ages involved in some way with “news.” It also aims to serve as a reminder of the importance of free news media to the health of a democracy.
Panel participants were Julian Emerson, a reporter for UpNorthNews after a lengthy stint at the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram; Rich Kremer, a reporter for Wisconsin Public Radio (WPR); Prof. Geoff Peterson, chair of the UW-Eau Claire Political Science department; and Kristen Shill, news director at WQOW-TV in Eau Claire. Prof. Jan Larson, chair of the UW-EC Communication and Journalism department, was the moderator.
Social media criticized
Peterson was highly critical of the role social media – especially Facebook – now play in elections, while conceding that he had no solution for the problem. He said social media are increasingly important to a large number of voters, but provide much disinformation and “clutter that drives out real information, drives out the facts.”
Larson noted that a recent study by the Pew Research Center indicated that people who get their political information primarily from social media are less well informed and less engaged in the process than those who rely on more traditional news sources.
Emerson suggested that one way for traditional news outlets to engage their audiences is to use a variety of sources to produce stories that matter to audience members. He said that providing links within stories that lead to solid backup information can add “layers of depth” to stories.
Kremer said that WPR uses questions submitted by its listeners as guides for what stories to pursue. Giving people that kind of a personal stake in the reporting “builds trust in what we’re doing,” he added, and that’s important because most “people really don’t understand what we do.”
‘Fake news’ charges are damaging
Peterson, however, suggested that while such measures work with existing audiences, they do little to attract new people to those audiences. The combination of social media’s effects and charged of “fake news” by President Trump and others have produced so much damage that it’s difficult to agree even on basic terminology, he said.
Shill echoed that point when she noted the importance of choosing the right words to describe situations that people view differently. For example, the distinctions between a “protest” and a “demonstration” and a “riot” will be seen differently by different audience members, she said.
Emerson said that, despite the difficulties, the journalist’s job is to figure out the truth in complex and controversial situations and to “demonstrate to viewers and listeners why that is the truth.” He added, though, that people are increasingly unwilling to believe facts that don’t mesh with what they already think.
Peterson said it’s a scary situation when there is no agreement “on how we treat facts and how we treat politics.” There’s “an enormous amount at stake” in this situation, but “I don’t have a good answer,” he added.
Gerrymandering problems
The inability to agree on basic terms could stem in part from gerrymandered legislative districts, Kremer suggested. Districts created artificially to ensure one-party control inevitably increase the importance of primary elections, he said.
“These districts force primary opponents to the extremes, so why would they ever stop” when they emerge as winners, he said.
Peterson said that “gerrymandering is one of the great under-reported stories” in American political history, and it’s not a new phenomenon. The practice, which dates back to 1812, aims to give one party or group an unfair electoral advantage by manipulating district boundaries.
The party that controls the state legislature next year can dictate the size and shape of legislative districts for the next decade and computers now allow this to be done “with a ridiculously high measure of precision,” he said. Since most people pay little or no attention to this “incredibly important” fact, it’s up to the news media to “find a way to tell that (this) story is very important,” he added.
Kremer suggested that one way to get through to the public on this topic is to explain the consequences of gerrymandering. Among them, he said, is a total lack of bipartisanship.
Covering marginalized groups
The panel also wrestled with the question of providing more and more knowledgeable coverage of marginalized groups. Responses ranged from Shills’ emphasis on developing contacts in those groups to Emerson’s goal of seeking out people of color and including them in stories.
Emerson said he has asked himself “’why was I not writing the stories they were telling?’” One answer, he said, was “we have to overcome our whiteness, I guess.”
Kremer added that public radio still has a long way to go in this area, but has some efforts underway.
As to when we may know the outcome of the presidential election, Peterson cautioned that it could take up to a week after Nov. 3 if the millions of absentee ballots must first be counted. That situation is complicated by various state prohibitions against counting those ballots before election day, he said.
He added, though, that if by 11 p.m. on Nov. 3 Joe Biden has a clear lead in the tallies of in-person voting in southern states that Trump is counting on – including Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas – it may be safe to predict a Biden victory. If Trump leads after the in-person ballots are counted, the result will probably remain in doubt.
This assumes, of course, the accuracy of the conventional wisdom that absentee ballots will favor Biden.
Other points that the panel touched on during the discussion included:
- Peterson’s comment that most people who attend political rallies are already committed to a candidate and there is no evidence to support the belief that Hillary Clinton lost Wisconsin in 2016 because she didn’t visit the state after the primary election campaign.
- General agreement that explaining the registration and voting processes did not make journalists activists rather than detached observers; as Emerson put it, this involves “trying to engage people in our democracy . . . and I’m comfortable with that.”
- Reducing the number of polling places isn’t necessarily voter suppression, but it would be discriminatory if the remaining locations aren’t on public transit lines, aren’t open outside of normal working hours and are inconveniently located for minority populations to reach.
If you liked this story, please remember there were costs involved in producing it. The CVPost has no paywall, and we rely on our readers to help us meet the costs of reporting community news and information you often won’t find elsewhere.
Annual CVPost membership is $50, but contributions of any amount also matter. Please consider helping community supported journalism survive by clicking the Donate button below.