New Year’s resolutions for the media (and those who love to hate us)

The new year is upon us, but many of the same old problems plague journalism. So as we plow into 2024, join me in my intermittent tradition: New Year’s resolutions for the news media. This election-year edition includes not only three pledges for those of us who produce the news but also one for those who consume it. (That’s you!)

■ Media Resolution 1: Spend less time reporting on who’s likely to win an election and more on what they’d do if elected.

The point of winning elections is, ostensibly, to govern. Yet a voter could spend hours watching or reading presidential election coverage and come away with only a vague understanding of what any of the contenders would do as president. Too often journalists ask candidates questions like “Why are you so far down in the polls in Iowa?” rather than “What would your position on (food stamps/tariffs/banking) mean for Iowans?”

Jay Rosen, a New York University journalism professor, has pithily boiled down our mission as “Not the odds, but the stakes.” These days, Rosen’s refrain is usually quoted in the context of the stakes for democracy (specifically, under another Trump administration), but it’s a good principle for any substantive matter that affects the lives of everyday Americans.

We must produce more coverage of what, say, the health care system would look like under different candidates’ platforms. Also climate, working conditions, immigration, civil rights, taxes, nutritional programs and so on. This is harder to do than just covering the horse race, but it adds more value.

■ Media Resolution 2: Pay more attention to nonpresidential races — including those for state and local offices.

State lawmakers lack the resources of their federal counterparts to research and craft policy measures, and yet it’s at the state level that some of the most far-reaching or radical policy changes happen. States have received renewed attention for their actions on abortion, but other issues, such as safety-net coverage, still receive relatively scant attention.

With local newsrooms and state capital bureaus suffering from budget cuts, those of us lucky enough to still be employed must work harder to hold state and local officials accountable.

■ Media Resolution 3: Report the important positive news and not just the important bad news.

Journalists are often accused of having a “bad-news bias.” That’s partly because alarming or infuriating stories sell in a way that positive ones often don’t — particularly in an era in which the public seems addicted to outrage. This addiction manifests in many ways, including in how politicians talk, how regular people converse with one another, and what newspeople decide to report.

There’s also a cover-your-rear impulse that disproportionately discourages positive news coverage. If we write about a policy/company/person/study/whatever in a way that emphasizes the good things, and it turns out we missed some significant problem, we look like fools. If we write something broadly critical and miss something good, audiences rarely care.

But our job is to give the public a truthful portrait of the world around them. Positive developments are part of that too.

This brings me to my resolutions for you, our audience:

There are many, many things I wish consumers of media would commit themselves to next year. Stop blaming the messenger when we do deliver bad news about your preferred candidate or party. Stop expecting independent journalists to be on your “team.” Scrutinize your sources before sharing. Etc.

But my key resolution for news consumers is this: Help news organizations stick to the pledges above. You can do this by actually consuming the nuanced, balanced, thoughtful news coverage you say you want.

One reason journalists disproportionately cover polls is that doing so is relatively easy; another is that audiences appear to prefer simple, digestible “who’s ahead?” summaries to nitty-gritty policy issues. They don’t seem to care much about local elections (as evidenced not just by audience ratings but by voter participation). And they love to rage-click. Those who hate on media claim to want more balanced, meaty coverage and fewer inflammatory headlines. But virtually any journalist can tell you that these stated preferences are not borne out by our traffic numbers.

And those numbers matter. They especially matter in an era of ultrathin budgets and media layoffs, in which complex investigative work that almost no one reads or watches becomes an unaffordable luxury.

So if substantive coverage matters to you, reward it with your attention. Vote with your eyeballs, your ears, your clicks, your shares, your paid subscriptions. That can mean at other organization whose work you like, and, through your news-consumption habits, resolve to make better in 2024.