[00:00:09] Moderator Alex: When it comes to campaign coverage, a lot gets covered, but an awful lot gets overlooked. Do the media limit the terms of public debate? If you're a candidate whose views are outside mainstream politics, will you ever read about them in the mainstream media? Vermont Representative, Bernie Sanders says that's pretty unlikely. As the only independent in Congress, he ought to know. For this hour of On the Media, Congressman Sanders and two veteran Washington reporters, Tom Hamburger of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and Judy Hasson of USA Today, talk about what gets reported, what doesn't, and why.

With campaign coverage of the 1996 presidential election well underway, we'll look at how well the media are serving democracy. That's up next after this news. So stay tuned.

[music]

[00:01:08] Moderator Alex: Campaign coverage of the 1996 presidential election is well underway. Whether you're a candidate or just someone with a cause, getting your word out is crucial. Getting the word out is also crucial for a democracy which thrives on the circulation of a wide range of opinions and ideas. Do the media limit the terms of public discourse? What gets covered, what gets passed over, and how does it affect the way we see and act in the world?

The media follow Bob Dole's almost every move, and there's ample opportunity to read about Lamar Alexander and Steve Forbes, but what about presidential candidates, Heather Ann Harder, a Democrat from Indiana, and Millie Howard, an Ohio Republican? Of course, they're both long shots, very long shots for president, but should the media report on the issues these outside candidates are talking about? Especially at this stage of the campaign season and especially since the media have embraced the idea that campaign coverage should not be just a horse race.

I'm Alex Jones, and on this hour of On the Media, we're looking at how the media are framing public debate in this election year and how the norms of campaign coverage affect democracy. US Representative, Bernie Sanders is the only independent member of Congress, the first, in fact, to be elected in 40 years. As you might imagine, he has a lot to say about what gets covered and what doesn't. I'm very pleased that you are joining us today, Bernie Sanders.

[00:02:37] Representative Sanders: Alex, it's a pleasure to be with you.

[00:02:38] Moderator Alex: We're also joined by two veteran Washington reporters, Tom Hamburger, Washington bureau chief of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. He's currently a knight fellow at Stanford University, where he's looking into issues of media and democracy. Tom, it's always glad to have you.

[00:02:53] Reporter Hamburger: Good to be with you this morning.

[00:02:54] Moderator Alex: Judy Hass Hasen, the congressional and political reporter at USA Today. She's currently on the campaign trail with Bob Dole. Judy, very glad to have you back.

[00:03:05] Reporter Hassen: Thank you very much, Alex. Nice to be here,

[00:03:07] Moderator Alex: Judy Haas Hasen, from the perspective of USA Today, at what point does a minor candidate merit coverage? I mean, getting on the ballot, having a provocative platform, big ads, what?

[00:03:18] Reporter Hassen: Well, we try to cover all interesting candidates and all interesting stories, but the problem arises over the issue of money. As I'm sure you know, starting next month, the Federal Election committee Commission is due to cut its first check. That check will be matching money for all the presidential candidates who've raised money. There is a tendency to cover the candidates that are out there with money, that have campaign ads up on local television stations that are able to organize from state to state. As opposed to the candidates who don't have money, who are working on a grassroots level, who really have no way to get their message out.

[00:03:56] Moderator Alex: The assumption is that if the candidates can put together enough money to get matching funds, then they have reached a certain threshold of credibility or seriousness.

[00:04:05] Reporter Hassen: Well, no, that's not the case at all. I think we tend to gravitate toward those candidates, and even when the candidates have run out of money, we're still writing about them. There are two examples, recent examples. One is Senator Arlen Specter, who just dropped out of the campaign because he couldn't raise enough money. He had a very interesting moderate message. Governor Wilson, another candidate who dropped out only about a month after he actually formally started his campaign because he had money problems.

Now, there are more than 30 candidates running for president this year as I'm sure you know, most of them are not household names and will never become household names. I think there's a tendency of the media to gravitate to the story, whatever that story is, at the expense of these other candidates who probably deserve more coverage than we're giving them.

[00:04:55] Moderator Alex: Tom Hamburger, you've been studying this on a fellowship at Stanford. What gets covered by the media historically? Can you give us some perspective on this?

[00:05:04] Reporter Hamburger: Well, my concern, Alex, as I look at coverage this year and as we look at it over time, is that what tends to get covered is personality over substance, the horse race of the campaign, again over substance, conflict between candidates rather than consensus. What all this adds up to though is that we're covering things other than ideas, other than what might be most important for the future of our democracy.

[00:05:33] Moderator Alex: Well, why is that? We've talked about these. Every year after every election the press beats itself up thoroughly for not covering ideas and broadly covering ideas. Seems then to make resolutions, quite sincerely, that this year, this time or next time, it's going to be different. Then we have the same browser, breast-beating another time.

[00:05:56] Reporter Hamburger: It's true. We're all aware of this cycle. I do, by the way, think that it is getting better. From probably the low point of 1988, it has been getting slowly better. My belief, Alex, is that the American press corps particularly, and different from the press corps in other countries, are motivated and driven by a set of norms which tend to push us towards this kind of coverage that, that limits discourse, limits the discussion of ideas, and emphasizes personality and conflict over substance. It's not exclusively the case, but unfortunately, that's where our emphasis is, and it continues to be that way.

[00:06:34] Moderator Alex: Bernie Sanders, you're standing in for all these candidates who are considered to be marginalized. You, of course, as a socialist, are on the left, but there are others on the right and others with special interests, pro life, libertarian, a whole array of things. Talk, if you would, about your own experience and about the way that relates to a problem that goes beyond your own personal problems, of getting ideas that are not part of the mainstream into the common wheel of discussion.

[00:07:03] Representative Sanders: Well, thank you, Alex. I tend to agree with much of what Tom and Judy have said, but I take it from a different perspective. I think we've got to back up a little bit and go beyond just an election year and really ask ourselves what ideas are given serious coverage in television, the radio, and in the newspapers, and why is that? You asked the question, well, why is that? Is it the reporters are stupid? No, I don't think so.

I think one has to be very naive, not to ask the $64 question, and that is, who owns the media? We all can acknowledge, maybe with a little bit of regret, that television is playing an increasingly important role in the transmission of ideas to the American people. When you look at the fact that NBC is owned by General Electric, that Disney now owns ABC, CBS is owned by Westinghouse. Rupert Murdoch, a well known right winger, no one denies that, owns the Fox Network. Many of these same folks and others like them own major newspapers throughout America.

I think you have to be naive not to understand that increased corporate control over the ownership of the media is going to prejudice very much serious discussion of ideas that are not in harmony with the people who own America. For example, to my mind, and again this is before we even get into the presidential election, what is the most important issue facing America? Is it the OJ Simpson trial that went on day after day, night after night? I think most Americans don't think so. They didn't think that OJ was that experienced, and that's what the polls showed.

The most important reality to my mind is that the vast majority of the people are seeing, and have seen in the last 20 years, a decline in their standard of living. They are becoming poorer. They're working longer hours for lower wages. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poor, the middle class is shrinking. Does anyone seriously think that that has been the dominant issue being discussed on television, on the radio, in the newspapers?

[00:08:59] Moderator Alex: Well, let me point out that is very much the way you see things, and I think that you're a very articulate spokesman for that perspective. There are other people who are just as marginalized and have just as much difficulty getting attention of the media, who might feel absolutely differently or even opposite. For instance, there's the whole survivalist world out there. There are a whole range of people with very, very strong ideas. They don't get access. The question is, is it because, you seem to be saying that the reason they don't is because of the ownership of the media? I don't know. Is that what you're saying?

[00:09:34] Representative Sanders: I'm saying that one has got to be very naive not to believe that when you have major corporations controlling the media, hiring the people who give us the news, that there is not an enormous built-in prejudice in favor of the people who own, whose class owns the media.

[00:09:51] Moderator Alex: Okay, well, Tom Hamburger, how do you respond to that?

[00:09:54] Reporter Hamburger: I understand the congressman's point, but I don't agree with it. While I don't want to deny the importance of this increasing shift to corporate ownership, I think that's very significant, but I don't think it's what drives our coverage into this disconcerting vicious cycle that I believe occurs when politicians and journalists reinforce each other's least constructive conduct.

I think that there are norms of American journalism which explain it much more powerfully. They can explain, for example, if we go back to the health care debate, which Judy covered when it was a hot debate in this country a couple of years ago, we can see that ideas from both the left and the right, whether it was those who were advocating a Canadian national health insurance program or the Heritage Foundation's idea of a competitive marketplace for health insurance, that both ideas were marginalized, didn't get much attention even early on in the debate.

That happens, I think, because of the tendency of American journalists, one, to follow what leading political figures are saying rather than going out and doing our own investigating. Second, again emphasizing conflict, and third, is this Bernie, the congressman alluded to it a moment ago, the power of soundbites in American politics and the role of television so limits our discussion. I think the limitations are more normative and have to do with the way we communicate publicly than with political bias of the owners of the media.

[00:11:27] Moderator Alex: Judy Hasson, how do you respond?

[00:11:29] Reporter Hassen: Well, I think the health care debate is a really good example of how the debate was owned by the people who had the money to pay for the ads on television, but I really do have to disagree with the congressman on the issue of reporters being puppets and their strings being pulled by corporate owners. No one has ever told me how to slant a story, how to write a story, what to do about a story, or what to put in or leave out.

I think we make any mistake, the mistake we make is letting the people in the news define what the news is. For instance, if President Clinton has a speech on the environment, do we write about the environment or do we write about Bosnia? I think the press is caught between a rock and a hard place in something like that because he is defining the message of the day. That's the message he wants to get out, or any presidential candidate or any political candidate. When you go off that message, you are losing the competitive edge because your competitor will be on that message and writing about the issue that the president, or any other newsmaker, laid out for that day.

[00:12:32] Moderator Alex: Well, let me ask you, Judy, what are sort of the rules of engagement for this year? Is it going to be responsive, reactive, and not proactive the way I think a lot of people have hoped it would be?

[00:12:47] Reporter Hassen: Well, I don't know yet. I think it's a little too soon to tell. You mentioned Steve Forbes a few minutes ago. Steve Forbes was someone that no one had heard of until a few months ago, until he started talking about a flat tax and attacking Bob Dole very directly about his tax record. I think you saw a guy come from out of nowhere that the general public has not heard of, and may not know who he is yet, but someone who's now on the radar screen because of what he's doing and what he's saying.

[00:13:13] Moderator Alex: And because of how much money he spends.

[00:13:16] Reporter Hassen: That's right.

[00:13:17] Representative Sanders: Patrick, if I could jump in for a moment. In all due respect to Mr Forbes, the concept of a flat tax has been talked about for many, many years. The issue of Mr Forbes, and the real very significant and important issue, is how does a guy suddenly go from nowhere to a prominent position in the polls. Simply, and the only reason they acknowledge is he's bought the airwaves.

The issue of Mr Forbes is not his flat tax. The issue of Mr Forbes is he has said, I am a millionaire, multi, multi, multi-millionaire. I am prepared to spend tens of millions of dollars on the election, I bought the airwaves, and that's the reality. I'm now a serious candidate. The same with Ross Perone.

[00:13:50] Moderator Alex: I think that this is something we ought to give more time to, and we will when we come back. I want to ask our listeners though, given limited time and space, do you think the media have the job of acting as a filter to limit coverage of fringe candidates and positions? Or is that acting as a censor, something you probably do not want? Our number here is 1800-343-3342. This is On the Media from National Public Radio.

I'm Alex Jones, we're back with On the Media. We're talking about Election '96, setting the terms of debate and the role the media has in that. We're talking with Representative Bernie Sanders, independent congressman from Vermont, Tom Hamburger, Washington bureau chief of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, currently on a knight fellowship at Stanford University, and Judy Hassen, a congressional and political reporter at USA Today currently following Bob Dole.

Bernie Sanders, the issue of money in campaigns is absolutely essential, there's no question about that. Why does it sometimes work the way it seems now to be working with Steve Forbes, and at other times, even though candidates do have money, perhaps not their own money the way Forbes has, but they do have money. They throw a lot of money at it, and it really doesn't seem to make any difference.

[00:15:03] Representative Sanders: Well, Alex, the first point you made is more important than the second. Most of the time it works. You take a guy like Ross Breaux, and I respect Ross Breaux, but Ross is not an exceptional thinker, an exceptionally good politician. The day that he announced that he was running for president, he was a major candidate. Why? Because he's worth $4 billion and is prepared to spend $60 million in the election.

I know people who are a lot smarter than Ross or a lot better politicians who couldn't get the first base, who will not get on the Larry King Show over and over again. Right now in Oregon, there's a republican fellow who's about to buy the republican nomination for the United States Senate. Nobody knew who he was. He's buying that election. Louisiana, a fellow one, also a millionaire. 25% of the republican freshmen in Congress are millionaires.

To understand what's going on in politics today is to understand not only the power of money for the candidates themselves, but the ability of the media to determine what is the important issue. If I were to ask our two guests who are on with me today, let me ask you a simple question. The reality is that the vast majority of the American working people have seen a decline in their standard of living over the last 20 years. That's a fact. Working longer hours for lower wages. Who is the leader of the American working class today?

[00:16:14] Moderator Alex: Tom Hamburger, How do you respond?

[00:16:16] Representative Sanders: Who's the leader who's fighting that?

[00:16:17] Moderator Alex: I mean, has Bernie got a good point?

[00:16:19] Reporter Hamburger: Well, I think he does have a good point. It causes me to think again of how our campaigns for the presidency, which are really designed to be something more than about just who wins, don't address those broader issues and broader concerns. We get focused on much smaller issues, which I think again are created by our norms. Did Senator Dole accept money from a gay organization and return it properly or not? We're distracted and we aren't focusing on core questions that affect our democracy.

[00:16:56] Moderator Alex: Well, Bernie, let me turn it back to you. Who then should they be covering in this campaign that is not getting the coverage?

[00:17:03] Representative Sanders: Tom's point is exactly right. Before we talk about the who should we be covering? We have to ask if nobody, if I would ask you, Alex, or the vast majority of our listeners, who is the leader of the American working class? Nobody knows the answer. Does that mean that there aren't--

[00:17:20] Moderator Alex: I assume if we had a democratic party spokesman here, he would say the Democratic Party [inaudible 00:17:24].

[00:17:23] Representative Sanders: I don't even mean the party. Obviously, I think that's not-- Who is the individual? Who is the individual? You know who the quarterback is for the New York Giants.

[00:17:31] Moderator Alex: Obviously, who speaks for you is going to be different than who speaks for somebody else perhaps in the working class right now. Working-class people include Reagan Republicans. It's a perspective of opinion that you're talking about.

[00:17:44] Representative Sanders: Well, not really. In France right now, there's a major strike going on. If you ask the French people there, they'd say, well, Joe, this guy or that guy who I don't know who it is, is the leader. There is his story. What I'm saying is because we don't look at class in America, we don't even know who the leaders are of the American working class who are fighting back against very serious odds at a series of policies which are lowering the standard of living off American working people. That is not even an issue.

[00:18:09] Moderator Alex: Judy Hassen, how would you respond to Bernie's challenge about identifying the spokesman for that perspective in this election season?

[00:18:17] Reporter Hassen: Well, I would say there are a whole bunch of people. I would include Jesse Jackson in that list, I would include the heads of the major unions. I think more to the point, rather than the individual, is that there are certain-- The congressman has his own agenda. His agenda is representing working-class people in America. The Republicans have a different agenda and they want to represent someone different.

I would say that last year when the Republicans took control of the House and the Senate, the media fell down on its job big time. I think we were all blindsided collectively. There were very few news organizations that accurately predicted that Republicans would take control of the House. I think that was a classic example of the media not having its pulse on the public and what the public wanted and was missing and why they wanted some change. I think that in the coming year, we have to be a little more diligent about what the public wants.

[00:19:12] Representative Sanders: Judy, what about a discussion as to why 61% of the American public did not vote in the last election? How much do we talk about that?

[00:19:18] Reporter Hassen: Well, we don't talk about that at all, but there are plenty of voting projects out there trying to get people to vote. I don't know whether they voted out, didn't vote because there was apathy or they didn't like either candidate, or they didn't think a write-in vote would matter.

[00:19:30] Moderator Alex: The thing is, what is the role of the media in this? That's the question. What's the responsibility of the media? Do you think that the media, Judy, in this election season, are covering the waterfront idea-wise?

[00:19:42] Reporter Hassen: I think we're starting to. I think we have a long way to go, and we have to be a little bit more diligent and not let ourselves be led down the primrose path by whatever candidate wants to define the issue.

[00:19:53] Moderator Alex: We have a number of callers.,

[00:19:54] Reporter Hamburger: May I come back to Congressman Sanders Point?

[00:19:56] Moderator Alex: Yeah, sure Tom.

[00:19:56] Reporter Hamburger: Tom Hamburger speaking. I agree with Judy that we didn't cover the Republican and didn't anticipate the change in the mood of the country adequately last year. I think the congressman's point about the percentage of people who voted in that revolutionary election is a critical one for us to examine. Not so much to decide the merits of the results of the election, but that we as journalists need to be concerned now in ways we haven't been before about the health of our democracy. That that should be a core question for us.

Why are people, why are the American people turned off to politics? Why have we had a 25% drop in voter turnout in the past 25 years? It's a question for us not only to ask because it's good for Democracy. In an idealistic world, it's what we should focus on but it's also in our self-interes. Because as public faith in democracy declines, public faith in journalism is declining dramatically also.

[00:20:53] Moderator Alex: We have a number of callers and I want to get as many of them into this discussion as we can. Alan, hi. Alan? Hi, you're on the air.

[00:21:02] Caller Alex: Hello. HI, How are you guys?

[00:21:03] Moderator Alex: We're fine.

[00:21:04] Speaker F: Bernie, if you ever need anyone to work for you, I would like to. Here's my point. I think that we have a problem in the, I call it the fast foodization or Mcdonaldization of the media. You have a mentality out there that wants to sell, as Bernie was saying, in the economics, and the idea is mass appeal. What you have is instead of bringing the intelligence of discussions to the forefront, they bring the most common lowest denominator. Therefore, we do not raise the level of the issues. It's like when you travel, you go to these restaurants and these fast food places, that's what the media has become. As a result, there used to be this ethic of social, what's the word?

[00:21:51] Moderator Alex: Responsibility?

[00:21:52] Speaker F: Responsibility, thank you, Alex. Therefore, and not in an elitist way, but in a helpful way as to bring a level of discussion, because it's good for everybody and that doesn't exist. We have the capitalist system which wants to sell newspapers. Now, I know the journalists themselves are not bad people, but we're all part of the system. Who is going to stop in front of the train other than people like Bernie Sanders and say, wait, we have to stop. We have to really do what's good for everyone?

[00:22:19] Moderator Alex: Bernie, let me ask you. I think what Alan is also making, the point I understand you making, Alan, is that the representatives of the perspective that Bernie Sanders represents, in particular, are shut out. Is that what you're trying to say?

[00:22:33] Speaker F: I think that's part of it, and I think the reason they're shut out is because of what Bernie says and stands for. That is because the ethic that runs the whole media is selling and how much can we sell? Not quality of life. Those who make the capture are the few captains of industry and the rest of us lose out.

[00:22:53] Moderator Alex: Well, when we get back from this break, I'm going to ask Bernie Sanders to address the question of being a socialist in a capitalist system. How do you sell? Because he's in the business of selling his own perspective in the same way you're talking about, at least in the marketplace of ideas. We also want to get your comments and thoughts on this whole issue, this very complicated issue, and we invite your calls at 1800-343-342. This is On the Media from National Public Radio.

I'm Alex Jones. We're back with On the Media. My guest this hour talking about how the media, the role the media has in setting and limiting perhaps the terms of debate politically in this country. With Representative Bernie Sanders, independent congressman from Vermont, Tom Hamburger, Washington bureau chief of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and Judy Hassen, congressional and political reporter at USA Today. Bernie Sanders, before the break you were being asked by a caller, and by me, how you sell in this environment and how you go about trying to crack this nut given the media as they are.

[00:24:02] Representative Sanders: My situation, Alex, is probably different than most progressives in this country. I ran as a third-party candidate in 1970, '71, '72 and '74, and got between 1% and 4% of the vote. Vermont is a small and we got actually better coverage than we would get elsewhere. I didn't do very well in the election for a wide variety of reasons.

In 1981, I was elected mayor of the largest city in the state of Vermont, Burlington, by 10 votes. From that point on, I got a lot of media coverage obviously because you can't ignore the mayor of the largest city in the state of Vermont. Then I proceeded to become congressman. The coverage that I get in the state of Vermont is reasonable. It's as good as other people get and I don't complain.

What I would say, alex, if somebody like me who had my ideas, Democratic socialist perspective, wanted to get a stage in the national political theater, it would be very, very hard to do. The media itself has been conditioned into believing that the fact that we have the most unequal distribution of wealth in the industrialized world, that's not an important issue. You see. It's not an important issue. Ross Perot doesn't tell us it's an important issue.

[00:25:10] Moderator Alex: Now, that is something that there have been-- I've read many, many articles and seen things on that repeatedly. It's not something that hasn't been reported on.

[00:25:19] Representative Sanders: No, you have seen it. Yes, you have, but you've not seen it in the same way you see other stories. How important is it? Put it on a value judgment. To my mind, it is terribly important to know that the wealthiest 1% of the population own more wealth than the bottom 90%. By that I mean it's not just a one story story. It's what goes on in America. It tells us who makes decisions.

[00:25:44] Moderator Alex: Bernie, I don't want to, we're not debating your perspective on these things. The point is how, given the realities, do you get your thoughts into the common discussion in a political situation?

[00:25:58] Representative Sanders: I would say as a United States congressman I certainly get into the national media every once in a while. Certainly, in Vermont I'm in the media as much as I want. What I am saying though, is if somebody were not a United States congressman, had not been a mayor for eight years holding that perspective, that would be determined to be a fringe perspective because Bill Clinton doesn't talk about it and Bob Dole doesn't talk about it and Dan Radolf doesn't talk about it.

[00:26:23] Moderator Alex: Well, let me ask you, Tom Hamburger, a lot of people don't talk about that perhaps. A lot of people also don't talk about the idea that the government is a fundamental enemy of the people, the way some people think. The thing is, how do you go about deciding what is fringe? What is an idea that deserves the attention that the media can give something if they really make a point of it? How do you weed out the chaff from the grain?

[00:26:53] Reporter Hamburger: Well, I noticed something, Alex, in covering the health care debate and, Judy, I wonder whether you'll agree with this? That there is a very powerful conventional wisdom that operates in, particularly among political reporters based in Washington inside the Beltway. We tend to go to the same breakfast meetings, group meetings with political leaders.

Usually, they are majority leaders or in the leadership in Congress or in the executive branch, and what we tend to get are mainstream views. Early on in the debate over health care, say, we were told that some of the proposals, those offered by both the left and the right, were off the table. Because they were considered off the table by these opinion leaders, the people that we go to for quotes and for reaction, that became the reality.

It seems to me that journalism ought to be reaching beyond a conventional wisdom, particularly when theres a national problem at stake. Whether its income disparity or healthcare, that we ought to be reaching beyond and looking for ideas elsewhere, lessons from other countries. One of our roles should be talking about the things that politicians may not be talking about. I think we get trapped in the conventional wisdom inside the beltway. What do you think, Judy?

[00:28:09] Moderator Alex: Judy, what do you think?

[00:28:10] Reporter Hassen: Well, I really don't agree with you, Tom, that we took an issue off the table in the health care debate, and I don't agree with the congressman that he was a fringe candidate and didn't merit attention because we didn't think he merited attention. I remember when the congressman was elected, and we spent a lot of time, collectively in the media, writing about this guy.

Wow. Is he a Democrat? Is he a Republican? Where does he sit? Whose side is he on? It became a very interesting story. It became an interesting national story and before that, it wasn't an interesting national story, it was a good local story. I think that's the way we define things.

[00:28:47] Moderator Alex: It's a journalistic criteria.

[00:28:50] Reporter Hamburger: Judy, can I ask you this? If you're covering the presidential campaign, how free do you feel to raise issues that aren't being discussed by the major candidates? I ask that because I think it's the major candidates who tend to define the agenda for presidential elections.

[00:29:05] Moderator Alex: Message of the day.

[00:29:06] Reporter Hassen: There's the message of the day. I raise these issues all the time. I also think that I and other reporters will say, now, why is Bob Dahl attacking Hollywood again and what is in it for him, and why is he doing it at this point? As his numbers decline a little bit, he goes back to something that is comfortable and something that will get him a little boost in the polls. We do write about that.

[00:29:28] Moderator Alex: We have a lot of callers, and I want to get as many of them on the air as I can. Susan, you're on the air. Hi.

[00:29:33] Caller Sudan: Thank you for taking my call. I think in any field of endeavor, the thing to focus on is always what questions are you asking now? I'm a physician, and in terms of blood tests, there are dozens. Just because somebody had a blood test doesn't mean that they ordered a blood test that's going to answer the question that was needed. I think it's the same thing with what you asked before. What do we want to see in our newspaper coverage?

There are ways of getting these, "somewhat more fringe candidates" covered even if they're not covered in the same way as the major candidates. You can cut down on some of this speech of the day coverage and make a column. Other ideas in the news, other voices in the political debate, however you want to call it, and take some of these more unknown candidates and their ideas and bring them in so that the major candidates will have to deal with them. Because otherwise these ideas will never get any play.

[00:30:34] Moderator Alex: Let me ask Tom Hamburger to respond to that whole idea. Because he is, one, who has, for instance, advocated debates that would be for candidates of various stripes and so forth in elections in Minnesota. Tom, do you think that the media is genuinely amenable to this kind of broad and issue-oriented analysis and opportunity? Giving people opportunity for this kind of exposure?

[00:31:02] Reporter Hamburger: Alex, I think that there is concern in now in news organizations across the country. There is some recognition that we've got to do things differently than we have in the past, and that we have to enrich the discussion. Because we know that voters are being turned off and we know that our readers are being turned off. The statistics are quite dramatic.

The one that you probably, we've all heard before, is 71% of Americans say the press now gets in the way of society solving its problems rather than helping. Times Mirror Center survey. I think, and I know, a number of my colleagues and news executives across the country are searching for ways to open up the discussion and make it more meaningful.

[00:31:45] Moderator Alex: Well, isn't this the stage for this broad consideration of ideas as far as the presidential election is concerned?

[00:31:53] Reporter Hamburger: A political campaign?

[00:31:55] Moderator Alex: I mean, early in a political campaign.

[00:31:55] Reporter Hamburger: Yes, it should be.

[00:31:56] Moderator Alex: Do you see it happening?

[00:31:59] Reporter Hamburger: Well, I think there is some potential this year. There's some very exciting changes in coverage and even in the dynamics of the campaign itself that are being offered out there. In January, there's going to be this national deliberative conference in Texas sponsored by the University of Texas. A professor down there, Jim Fishkin, has organized a special meeting where they're bringing in a demographically representative group of people who will meet, who will study issues for a weekend, and then at the end of the weekend, meet with all of the presidential candidates.

Most of the major announced candidates have accepted at this point, and it's going to be broadcast by public television. All of the national media will be there, of course, because the candidates are there. It has the potential to be a very rich discussion and maybe to open up the discussion beyond the soundbite wars that we've become accustomed to into something a little richer, something more like what the caller is talking about.

[00:32:54] Moderator Alex: Thank you. Susan, thank you very much for your call. Mark, hi, you're on the air?

[00:33:00] Caller Mark: Hi. Am I on the air?

[00:33:01] Moderator Alex: Yes, you're on.

[00:33:01] Caller Mark: I'm calling from New York where something very interesting happened, that merger of CBS and Westinghouse House. It means that the two major all-news radio stations are now one corporate entity, WCBS and WONS. WNS was part of Group W. Yet, I don't see any major changes in the content. Sometimes I find there's a big disjunction between the content and the ownership.

For instance, somebody I know that misses, Congressman Sanders knew this guy. He might have been on your program, this working class guy, Michael Moore?

[00:33:48] Moderator Alex: Yes.

[00:33:48] Caller Mark: [unintelligible 00:33:48] television program. I also know that

[00:33:49] Moderator Alex: He was on-- Michael Moore was on Rupert Murdoch's program.

[00:33:55] Speaker F: I find this, for instance, you had a program, about 11 programs that are hated by the ultra-right with expose' of corporate malfeasance, all these magazine format stations. I don't think it's quite as right wing as Mr Sanders is saying. When Rupert Murdoch bought the Village Voice, it continued to be a left-wing paper. A matter of fact, it moved to the left from its previous owner.

[00:34:22] Moderator Alex: I think what you're talking about is the fact that in Rupert Murdoch's capitalistic, he's an absolute capitalist, there's no question about it. He perceives an audience and if there is an audience, be it left, right, center, or Martian, I think he would want to appeal to it. Bernie Sanders, how do you respond to this caller?

[00:34:42] Representative Sanders: I think the caller makes a point. It wasn't my suggestion to say that you have a media in America which is totally right wing, that no alternative ideas get out there. I would say though, in general, and there are notable exceptions and wonderful programs every now, in my view, and this gets back to why so many people, I think, don't vote. That has to do with their reality is not reflected on tv, in the newspapers. Is that in general, the most important issues facing ordinary American people are not often seen, or seen on a regular basis, or given the importance that they should have on television. Let me just give you one more example.

[00:35:21] Moderator Alex: Okay.

[00:35:22] Representative Sanders: We talk a lot in Congress, as we should, about the very serious national deficit. It's a serious problem, deserves a lot of discussion. There's another deficit, the trade deficit, $160 billion a year this year, costing us some 3 million American jobs. How much discussion is there in the American media about the fact that corporate America is investing $750 billion abroad, China, Mexico, and so forth and so on, laying off American workers? Is that an important issue? I think it's a very important issue. How much discussion does it get?

NAFTA, in my humble opinion, and in many economists opinion, has been a grotesque failure. It was supported by the entire corporate media, almost without exception. How much discussion is there now not only about the failure of NAFTA, but about the role of the media in supporting NAFTA? Do we hear much discussion about that? Are those important issues? I think they are.

[00:36:14] Moderator Alex: Mark, thank you very much for your call. We appreciate it. Barbara, you're on the air.

[00:36:19] Caller Barbara: Yes, hi. I think the questioning of candidates is so poor. I give you an example. President Bush or James Baker, his secretary of treasury, never were asked when they knew about the SNL problem and what they did about it. Secretary of treasury has an SNL, hundreds of billions of dollars on his watch, never inquired during the election. They just never asked the man anything.

For example, in 1992, everybody was talking about Bush and the Gulf war. He was out in his cigarette boat waving, and the next thing we'd see was the bombing and shelling of Dubrow in Yugoslavia, which people were extremely alarmed about. We've now come to see what that meant. Not ever A question about that. May I ask? The examining of candidates is ridiculous. You ask them about abortion or some silly thing that they did and never really get into making them accountable. They just haven't been. Thank you very much. [unintelligible 00:37:31].

[00:37:31] Moderator Alex: Okay, hold on. Judy Hassen, how do you respond?

[00:37:33] Reporter Hassen: I'll take you up on that one. I'd like to go back to something Tom said a few minutes ago, which is that the media is struggling right now to figure out what readers want to know. Do they want to read or hear a story about a flat tax, or do they want to know how many candidates have been divorced? I think in this age of tabloid journalism, the half-hour tv shows that we're up against, supermarket tabloids that have headlines that say 13 aliens are in the US Congress.

[00:38:04] Representative Sanders: I know 12 of them.

[00:38:05] Reporter Hassen: Everybody on Capitol, when that story came out, everybody on Capitol Hill laughed, and a few days later, there were stories about this. It was like, "Well, this is how far fetched things are." Some of the TV comics had a great time identifying some of these aliens. It goes back to who the individual is, where they get their information, and what they want from us. I think we're all sort of struggling to figure out what that should be.

[00:38:34] Reporter Hamburger: This is Tom Hamburger. I was so glad the caller mentioned the SNL crisis because that was an example of a huge national issue which cost taxpayers dearly. Largest effect on the deficit outside of health care spending. It wasn't addressed in the 1998, '88 race. The reason was that neither Democrats nor Republicans wanted to talk about it because they both bore responsibility for the crisis. Media should have been raising it, but we weren't.

[00:39:03] Moderator Alex: [crosstalk] Everybody will get a chance. Judy, go ahead.

[00:39:06] Reporter Hassen: This is a case, the SNL scandal is a case where the media absolutely fell down on its face and failed. We missed that story. That story has been bubbling since 1986, and we didn't hook onto that story until it became a really severe crisis. I would give us an F on that one.

[00:39:24] Reporter Hamburger: Judy, I think we missed it because the presidential candidates weren't talking about it. We're so locked into covering what they say rather than doing independent investigations that we missed it.

[00:39:35] Moderator Alex: Bernie Sanders?

[00:39:36] Representative Sanders: Let me tell you a story. After I left being mayor and before I went to Congress, I taught for a while at the Kennedy School in Harvard, and there was a gentleman who was the president of one of the major national networks TV department. He said, well, he said the SNL crisis wasn't good television, it was kind of boring TV. He contrasted that with a crash, an airplane crash that they covered in Iowa.

I think this gets back to the role of television and the general contempt which some officials on television have for the American people. They're really too stupid to deal with the tough economics of SNL, what they really want to see is bodies strewn about and a lot of sensationalism on television. I think that that's very unfortunate because that was a story of huge consequence, which the American people really did not get their fair shake of.

[00:40:21] Reporter Hassen: The American people are paying for it even.

[00:40:23] Reporter Hamburger: If I can just respond. Judy, you suggested a moment ago that there might be this dichotomy between issues and the gossip about a candidate's potential divorce or romantic life or sex life. I agree that those, that there's a tendency to push us towards those, the gossip stories and the taboos, tabloid stories. I think also that there, it's true that people are bored by issues, but they do care about their problems.

They do care about something that's going to cost them money, as the SNL crisis did dearly. I think if we turn our coverage to examine what people in a democracy might be concerned about as opposed to think of it as issues. Think about what are people's problems, the larger problems, then--

[00:41:05] Moderator Alex: I think if you could find it that way, it would make a huge difference. Let me talk about one of the fundamental journalistic problems, Tom, that you alluded to, and that is getting candidates to address the issues that you think are important. When they choose not to, how do you force them?

[00:41:22] Reporter Hamburger: There's some ideas bubbling up in my home state of Minnesota this year. There's a proposal out there which resulted from something, some ideas that I amalgamated in a piece in our paper. The ideas come from many other people, and it's not clear what's going to happen with it yet, but there's a proposal to hold a series of debates.

We would ask all the candidates to participate in them. There would be eight debates, and we'd also attempt to limit what we think may be the most destructive influence on coherent discussion, and that is attack advertising. I don't mean negative advertising, I mean the prepared footage that we see spreading across the country. Country in California, it dominated the Feinstein Huffington race in which character is assassinated, candidates are morphed, and issues are not discussed.

We'd ask, in Minnesota, a group of people are asking candidates to stop running that kind of ad. They can still run ads, say whatever they want, but the candidate should face the camera. At the same time, asking them to participate in a series of statewide debates in which citizens would pose questions about common concerns.

[00:42:28] Moderator Alex: We're going to come back and take more of your calls. I want to thank you, Barbara, that was a very provocative question you asked. Our number is 1800-343-3342. This is On the Media From National Public Radio.

I'm Alex Jones. We're back with On the Media, talking about the way the media helps set the parameters of political discussion, especially in a campaign year. We're talking with Representative Bernie Sanders, independent congressman from Vermont. Tom Hamburger, Washington bureau chief of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and Judy Hassen, congressional and political reporter at USA Today. Let's see. Herb, you're on the air. Herb?

[00:43:04] Caller Herb: Hello.

[00:43:06] Moderator Alex: Hello. Herb, you're on the air.

[00:43:08] Caller Herb: Oh, hello. It seems to me that the media has helped the public mislead ourselves by speaking of representation as being the expression of the opinions of various groups. If you look at the Constitution and read Edmund Burke, for example, you'll find that representation is not that. A congressman represents me whether I vote for him or not, even if I don't vote at all. I think that we've-- Also, we've kind of been misled by this use of the constitution. The written constitution is only part of it. Huge sections, for example, the political parties are not even mentioned.

[00:43:50] Moderator Alex: Do you think that the media has a significant role here? Where do you define it? Where do you see it? Where do you see them falling down?

[00:44:00] Caller Herb: Are you asking me?

[00:44:01] Moderator Alex: Yes..

[00:44:01] Caller Herb: Well, it seems to me the media, in this case, are really expressing what a lot of people think. That is a function that the media do want to sell their newspapers and so on, and they do tend to speak sort of mouth the public's view. If they want to help out, I think it would be a good idea to be more precise in your wording. When you say representation, it could be someone--

If someone is elected, let's say 61% of the people vote, as Bernie said, it seems to me he was being misled. Because if you don't vote, you're still being represented. It's still a legitimate vote. It doesn't mean that this president, for example, like Clinton, is not representing the whole country. He is.

[00:44:44] Moderator Alex: Herb, thank you for your call. Appreciate it. Freddie, hi. You're on.

[00:44:48] Caller Freddie: Hi. I'd like to refer back to a point that Congressman Sanders made early in the discussion. The USA Today reporter said that no one had ever told her how to slant the story, and I think that misses the point. The point is that the USA Today and other major papers only hire as reporters and editors people who already share their cultural values.

Imagine a reporter who's just as talented as this USA Today reporter, but is identified as a socialist throughout college, at journalism school, young adult life. How likely is that person to work as a Washington reporter or for the USA Today? [unintelligible 00:45:20] guarantee [unintelligible 00:45:22] are going to be people who think socialism is ridiculous?

[00:45:25] Moderator Alex: Okay, well, let's ask Judy Hassen to respond to that. Judy?

[00:45:28] Reporter Hassen: Sure.

[00:45:28] Moderator Alex: What's the range of political opinion and were you vetted in some way?

[00:45:33] Reporter Hassen: No, not at all. I don't think my editors know what my political opinions are, nor do they care. I keep it out of the newsroom, whatever it is. I think you might find on the editorial page, you'll find some editorial writers who have a liberal or conservative point of view, but not in the newsroom.

[00:45:53] Representative Sanders: If I could jump in, Alex, for one.

[00:45:55] Moderator Alex: Sure.

[00:45:56] Representative Sanders: I think the caller makes an excellent point. It's not what the political perspective is of the writer who gets hired, but what happens if he or she starts writing certain types of articles. I would point out very recently that Jim Hightower, who's a friend of mine, and as you know, had a syndicated radio talk show all over America, the only really progressive one on a national basis. He began to attack Walt Disney, the Disney company after they took over ABC. He was fired within a few days. If writers begin to ask questions which make the owners of the paper uncomfortable, I wonder what would happen in the future.

[00:46:31] Moderator Alex: Well, I think that you cannot, on any news organization I know, probably long or go along attacking your own news organization. I regret that Jim Hightower is off the air, but I think that that's one of the realities of the world. Now, the question is, could Jim Hightower have criticized Paramount and been thrown off the air? Is that a genuine prohibition on attacking corporate America or on attacking the people that write your paycheck? I think it's a tricky, tricky question. Freddie, thank you very much for your call. Vince, hi. Vince?

[00:47:13] Caller Vince: Hi. Hi.

[00:47:14] Moderator Alex: Hi. You're on the air.

[00:47:14] Caller Vince: I appreciate that. This is Vince from New Jersey. I do an electronic column on America Online called the Cooperative Society, and I'd like to relate this to the question that Representative Sanders was asked about how he, as a socialist, promulgates socialism among a capitalist congress and in larger terms, to basically a capitalist nation. The first point I'd like to make, if I could, and perhaps the overall point is that in good, shall we say, socialist fashion, no one individual would really be expected to persuade a large group of people of anything, much less democratic socialism, which is a pretty misunderstood idea.

If this idea is going to be conveyed, it needs to be done by groups of individuals. That's a critical point to be made. A socialist viewpoint is fundamentally a different one than a capitalist viewpoint. We tend to think a little less intense terms of individuals and more in terms of groups. Of course, individuals are to be valued and individual contributions are to be valued, as is leadership within a group.

[00:48:18] Moderator Alex: Well, let me, just let me ask you, what is the role of the Internet during this campaign season? What do you see?

[00:48:24] Caller Vince: Well, first of all, there's the obvious fact of the explosion of the net in terms, in technical terms, meaning the net is actually expanding and expanding capabilities. There's a tremendous explosion and awareness of the net. Of course, congressmen are creating their own web pages and this sort of thing. People are utilizing the net in terms of spreading socialism, which I think might be a [unintelligible 00:48:48] point given the political views of your guest.

There are a number of groups doing things on the net. I know the Socialist Party USA has their own webpage as far as I know. Again, on America Online, we have what's called the Cooperative Society Discussion forum. Again, the Coperative Society refers simply to socialism with a little bit of a [unintelligible 00:49:06].

[00:49:06] Moderator Alex: Look beyond socialism per see, is there the widest array of political perspective represented on the net now? For instance, survivalist, anti-abortion, pro-life, whatever.

[00:49:21] Caller Vince: I'll answer you, but let me qualify my answer by remarking that my own expertise is more focused on America Online, although I do have some familiarity with the net. As far as I know, most viewpoints are represented on the net. The problem we had, and that's actually been focused on in the media to some degree in terms of some of the more heinous really views, unfortunately in people who convey information about bomb-making and this sort of thing.

Perhaps there's some things on there we might look askance at as well. In terms of America Online, prior to the creation of the Cooperative Society discusion forum, the socialist viewpoint, in fact, was not represented. That was really a glaring omission given that America Online is pretty much a potpourri of everything else you might want to look to.

[00:50:06] Moderator Alex: Tom Hamburger, do you see a significant role for the net very quickly?

[00:50:10] Reporter Hamburger: I do. I think the new media, we're in a new media age. The monopoly of the old system is breaking down some. Access in terms of presidential politics certainly belongs to those who can afford to get their message out.

[00:50:21] Caller Vince: That's a good point. If people don't have about $1,000 or so to lay out for a computer, they're not going to get onto the net. The extent of their activities are probably going to be confined to reading about it in Time magazine.

[00:50:33] Moderator Alex: I'm afraid we're going to have to cut it off there. Thank you very much, Vince. I'm sorry, we've run out of time. Very interesting discussion. I want to thank my guests, Representative Bernie Sanders, independent congressman from Vermont. Tom Hamburger, Washington bureau chief of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and Judy Hassen, congressional and political reporter at USA Today.

The producer for On the Media is Judith Hepburn Blank, with associate producer Lauren Comatow, and assistant producer Jennifer Nix. Production assistant, Kavita Menon. Our technical director is Paul Ru West, with audio engineer Mike Demarck. Executive producer, Larry Orfaleye. I'm Alex Jones.

[music]

[00:51:22] Host: If you have any comments or questions about On the Media, call 1800-343-3342. Funding for On the Media is provided by the John H. and James L. Knight Foundation, the WNYC foundation, and National Public Radio Radio. This program is a production of WNYC New York Public Radio, in association with the Poynter Institute for Media Studies in St. Petersburg, Florida. This is NPR, National Public Radio.

 

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.