The Media and Foreign Policy Posted by Michael Cohen

Michael Signer has a great post below on the various blog responses to his op-ed in the Washington Post decrying the lack of effective news coverage of foreign affairs on the campaign trail. Allow me to weigh in here with a few thoughts.

I think part of the reason why the media does such a poor job of talking about foreign affairs is part of the problem that Ilan identified below - they don't know much about it. The type of reporters that cover campaign politics are raised on politics, not foreign affairs. So when they do bother to cover foreign issues, it tends to be through the prism of domestic politics.

But to be honest, how are domestic policy issues that much different? With all due respect to Michael, I think there are plenty of folks that work on domestic issues for the various candidates who would argue that the press does an abysmal job of covering their issues as well. I think the point raised by Signer is not restricted to foreign policy issues - it's indicative of virtually all political campaign coverage.

While I don't doubt that foreign affairs coverage is worse I was struck by the fact that in Tuesday's Ohio debate there were four questions on foreign affairs (Iraq, NAFTA, Russia,  experience to be commander in chief) - that's as many as we got on domestic issues. So I'm just not sure that it's accurate to argue foreign policy is getting short thrift.

Also, after claiming that John Edwards foreign policy speeches got precious little coverage, Signer notes that

This isn't sour grapes from a losing campaign. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have faced the same indifference. Obama presented a wide-ranging foreign policy speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last April, a speech on veterans' issues in August, an Iraq address in October. Clinton gave a national security address in June, one on Iraq in July, a veterans' speech in August. In every instance, the mainstream media were almost completely AWOL in providing thoughtful, analytical coverage.

I looked over the coverage of these speeches and it seems to me that they received the typical response that many campaign speeches get - a write up in the major dailies with some online analysis. No more and no less then you might expect from a domestic policy speech that doesn't break new ground. (Some like Obama's Chicago speech received particularly thoughtful coverage).

But I think it's fair to flag the speech Michael failed to reference: the one that Barack Obama gave in August on terrorism. That received wall-to-wall coverage.

This was due in no small measure to the fact that Obama mentioned the possibility of bombing Pakistan - a surefire way to garner news headlines. In the end, there was plenty of thoughtful coverage of the speech and it was an issue featured prominently in later Democratic debates - and continues to be raised on the campaign trail today. 

I hope Michael won't take too much offense at this last statement, but I think part of the reason why John Edwards didn't get the coverage he deserved for his foreign policy speeches is well . . . because he's John Edwards and quite simply he received less coverage than the other prominent candidates. Again, my sense is that press coverage of foreign affairs has largely followed the same course as most media coverage during the campaign.

Part of the problem on foreign affairs has been the lack of substantive differences among Democrats and Republicans.  Reporters love conflict; but if you look at the positions of the major candidates on Iraq, as one example, there is a startling similarity. When the candidates disagree the press has perked up; whether it was Obama's attack on Hillary for supporting a Senate resolution condemning Iran, or attacks on Obama for saying that he would meet with foreign leaders of enemy states. This is probably the same reason why on the Democratic side climate change and energy issues haven't received much traction (the candidates largely agree) and health care has (the candidates largely disagree).

Finally, I want to posit question to Michael. One of John Edwards most provocative campaign stances was opposition to increasing the size of the army. It's a position that I believe is correct and courageous and stands in stark contrast to Obama and Hillary both of whom support increasing the military. Why didn't Edwards raise this issue more pro-actively in the debates? Maybe he did earlier, but I don't remember catching it in the NH or SC debates. If Edwards wanted to differentiate his foreign policy views this seems like a good place to start and surely if he had raised it in either debate it would have received prominent coverage. Might that have helped Edwards get more attention for his foreign policy positions.

Thanks again Michael for weighing in and I look forward to you telling me why I'm wrong!

Comments

[Dan Kervick]

But to be honest, how are domestic policy issues that much different? With all due respect to Michael, I think there are plenty of folks that work on domestic issues for the various candidates who would argue that the press does an abysmal job of covering their issues as well. I think the point raised by Signer is not restricted to foreign policy issues - it's indicative of virtually all political campaign coverage.

This is true. Brad DeLong posts something almost daily under the heading "Why, Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps?" or something like that, in which he points out the latest example of the superficiality and incompetence in media coverage of economic issues. But it's especially bad with those on the political beat.