SHARE:
Games
That hurts. Sure, the public never has been particularly fond of the press, and few journalists went into this business to win popularity contests. But to be put at the level of politicians, who have been the subject of popular ridicule and disdain since the days of the Continental Congress, does smart a bit.
A couple of seemingly unrelated studies dealing with the complex issues of the public's perception of the press and of the government came to my attention recently. Both, I think, are worthy of note because they shed some light on these two strange bedfellows who sit uncomfortably side by side at the bottom of the opinion polls.
One is a new book written by James Fallows, Washington editor of Atlantic Monthly, called "Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy." It is a title clearly aimed at making him a pariah in his own hometown - and to judge from reviews and commentaries the book has provoked, he has succeeded brilliantly. More about Fallows' book later.
The other relevant item to the issue of press/political popularity is a brief but illuminating report on page 104 of this issue. It's by Thomas R. Dye, McKenzie Professor of Government at Florida State University (FSU), who punches a hole in the Republican theory that state and local governments enjoy any more legitimacy than the distant government in Washington.
"Since the early '80s," writes Dye, "the percentage of Floridians who say that they trust their state government 'just about always' or 'most of the time' has fallen from over 55% to 35%."
What is more, while 39% of a national sample said they "could" trust their state government, only 33% of Floridians said so. Among the state's various elected officials, legislators are held in particularly low esteem. There's now a 40% gap between fair/poor and excellent/good ratings for the Legislature.
Of course, politicians roll out reasons for the disaffection. The state's geography is blamed for the separation of the state government in the north from the governed, mostly to the south. There's the constant influx of new people, many of whom retain a loyalty to their former home states. Then there's the anti-taxation appeal of Florida, which attracts people who are eager to evade the cost of government.
All these surely contribute to the public distrust of government in Florida, but there's more to it. Lance deHaven-Smith, also an FSU professor, who directs the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy, places the blame squarely on the politicians themselves. Writing in Florida Trend last August, deHaven-Smith acknowledged that this state's citizens are difficult to lead because of their diversity and lack of political sophistication.
But he pointed to the lack of leadership as the reason for the continuing drift. "Until Florida's leaders begin to take visible stands on tax reform, budget restructuring, urban sprawl and other pressing issues," he wrote, "the citizenry will remain blind to its common problems and unaware of its shared interests."
This thesis becomes the more interesting when one considers the illustration on page 104, which traces the precipitous decline from favor of Florida's recent governors. Ever since the Bob Graham administration, the office of governor has been on a slippery slope through Bob Martinez to the current low point occupied by Lawton Chiles.
A fall from grace by the top executive has serious consequences for the state. "When trust in leadership is high," writes Dye, "leaders have greater flexibility in dealing with painful issues." And God knows, Florida has plenty of those.
It's interesting to speculate about Bob Graham's popularity in the 1980s, when Florida's economy was booming: Was it the man or the moment? We may get the answer if Graham resigns from the Senate and runs for governor again in 1998, as the speculation has it. If nominated and elected, will Graham seize the moment, parlay his apparent popularity to introduce the tough reforms so desperately needed by this troubled state?
As for why journalists have joined politicians in the basement of public opinion, Fallows' book says one reason is that reporters, columnists, TV commentators and panelists have not only gotten too close to their sources, they have begun behaving like them. "Step by step," writes Fallows, "mainstream journalism has fallen into the habit of portraying public life in America as a race to the bottom, in which one group of conniving, insincere politicians ceaselessly tries to outmaneuver another."
Doesn't that sound like what goes on every day in Washington? Well, Fallows blames the messengers for portraying everything in terms of politics - winners and losers. He sees members of the press as becoming sort of the Don Kings of politics: hyping the political bouts to their own advantage. "By choosing to present public life as a contest among scheming political leaders, all of whom the public should view with suspicion," says the author, "the news media help bring about that very result."
What can government and the press do to gain public confidence? The typical reform agenda won't do it, according to Dye. His research suggests that "the election of credible leaders can have a positive effect on people's attitudes toward government" - a conclusion much like deHaven-Smith's.
Fallows, for his part, does paint the Washington press corps with a very broad brush, but I can say from experience that much of his criticism is on the mark. For example, instead of expending endless hours of air time and countless inches of copy on which politicians gain what (and lose what) from health-care reform, the media should be reporting on what the people need and should expect from the American health-care system.
The irony is that the more members of the press portray what goes on in Washington as simply a political game, the more the public sees them as players in the game - a game which it doesn't like, understand or respect.
