A different approach to journalism
If you know any political journalists or pollsters in this holiday season, it might be a good idea to give them a friendly, socially distanced wave or some nicely wrapped hand sanitizer. They could use some bucking up.
The horse-race polling that occupies so much of their attention has once again proved deeply flawed. After the collective flub of 2016 — which consistently underestimated Donald Trump’s support by about four points — the new, improved, refined, adjusted version of national polling underestimated Trump’s support by about four points. This means that coverage and commentary based on the premise of a sizable, sustained Joe Biden lead were distorted.
The crisis faced by polling is leading to some soul-searching. Maybe the whole business of political analysis and commentary has placed too much emphasis on opinion polls. Maybe there should be less focus on the horse-race aspect of politics and more on the issues facing the country. Maybe we should rebalance political coverage away from who is up and who is down in favor of candidates’ policy proposals on pandemic response, or police reform, or containing Chinese aggression.
This kind of issues journalism is important, and there should be more of it. But the urgent problem of American politics is not an insufficient airing of policy disagreements; it is that policy views have become a function of cultural identity.
A matter such as climate disruption, for example, attracts comparatively little informed and reasoned disagreement. The denial of climate change has become a cultural signifier, the policy equivalent of a gun rack in a truck.
Will an issues-based political journalism/analysis/commentary speak across this yawning social gap? Maybe sometimes. But the problem goes deeper still. Many of our most serious divisions have become openly moral. In the current case, the president and his strongest supporters believe that their cause — the maintenance of power — is worth the massive invalidation of legitimate votes in disproportionately Black urban areas. They claim this is a moral action — to fight socialism, or to protect tradition, or to serve their illustrious leader, or whatever.
They are wrong. And only an ethical argument can demonstrate it. It is racist to seek the invalidation of mainly Black votes in Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia or Atlanta. It is a violation of morality and an attack on democracy to throw away valid votes for nakedly political reasons.
Such arguments are located in a larger moral context. It is wrong to use other people as objects of manipulation rather than as human beings with inherent dignity. It is wrong to vilify social and cultural groups — migrants or refugees or Muslims — as a method to stir up anger and gain political support. It is wrong.
The ultimate political questions are thus: Is moral argumentation still possible? Do people still feel shame when their prejudice and cruelty are exposed to scrutiny? Do most people have some kernel of conscience that can grow under the right circumstances?
This is not to argue against the importance of horse-race journalism or issues journalism, both of which will always have their place. It is only to put in a good word for moral journalism and moral commentary — which reveal the names and faces of those who suffer, and remind us of the duties we have to one another.