Forbes is reporting that there will be 15,000 journalists at each of the two upcoming political conventions.
Unbelievable.
At a time when news budgets are being slashed because of declining revenue, how can a news organization possibly justify sending a raft of people to the conventions? (I suspect the numbers for the Olympics are about the same–and just as ridiculous.)
The Los Angeles Times is sending 15 people to the conventions, Forbes says. And that doesn't count journalists from other Tribune Co. papers that will be helping out. With what? Apparently, the Zellot cost-cutters missed this line item. Too bad. USA Today plans to send 34 reporters to each convention; Dow Jones is sending 23 to each. The New York Times and Washington Post aren't disclosing their numbers, but you can believe they're similarly inflated. The good news is that many organizations say they're cutting back from previous convention coverage–but it's still too much.
Sorry, but in most cases, there's really no (legitimate) excuse for a single news organization to send a large number of journalists to the convention. What stories are they going to get that the AP can't supply? Hijinks of the local delegates? Inside info about what the candidates hope to do for the economy back home? Local color on Denver and St. Paul? It's really hard to understand the need for this kind of bulk coverage.
Unless, of course, you understand that the conventions serve as gala social events for journalists, as well. It isn't just political reporters that go to big events like these–it's editors, managing editors and publishers who get to go along for the expense-account ride (in expensive style, no doubt). That puffs up those numbers of attendees. It's a way of showing the flag, of hanging out with old friends, of doing some (much-needed these days) job networking.
But that doesn't make it right. In fact, at a time when coverage is being cut back and newspapers and broadcasters really need to be devoting more resources to local coverage and other journalism that readers truly care about, this sort of boondoggle is just plain wrong.
How about the fact that these reporters are covering a political stunt, a ruse, a work of theater that's filled with spin? I'd like to see more resources devoted to cutting through the BS rather than typing up the BS.
Posted by: Anon. | August 12, 2008 at 06:04 PM
Well, we HAVE to go because we have a local candidate who may be a Cabinet member -- John Edw...Oh, wait. Never mind.
Posted by: John Robinson | August 12, 2008 at 08:18 PM
Interesting observations, Mark, as always. Another tangent: my community paper has a columnist who wanted to go on his own dime. He was issued press credentials that were rescinded because we weren't enough of a newspaper for them and space was an issue. This could have been an opportunity for us to put a local spin on a national issue just by virtue of a local voice on the editorial page. So not only is overkill on the part of the dailies hurting their own papers, they're keeping truly local voices from participating in the democratic (with or without a cap D) process.
Posted by: Jeff Potter | August 13, 2008 at 04:08 AM
I'm the journalist/poitical commentator Jeff mentions above - with Denver credentials first accepted, then lifted by the DNC. I was credentialed in '04 and for other conventions. I write regulkarly for two local dailies and am an indepent TV producer. Among the reasons for rejection may be the fact that my political publication focuses a lot on such "local color" as the marginalization of those who point out, as Kucinich has, that king has no clothes, the manner in which protesters are penned and abused, on finding where denver's homeless have been hidden. I've written and filmed most critically about the failures and complicity of the Democratic leadership. They don't like that. I'd be a hit with the Republicans, but I wouldn't want to spend four days in Minneapolis with that lot. As for this blogs reference to partying, elbow rubbing, backscratching, and such at conventions, I can vouch that that is a very big part of what goes on.
Posted by: Carl Doerner | August 13, 2008 at 06:24 AM
There are some folks, who for various reason passed on covering the '68 Democratic Convention in Chicago and White House reporters who passed on what seemed to be an insiginificant Florida trip on Sept 10, 2001. Sure nothing unexpected may occur in Denver or St. Paul, but if something major does occur, the editor who made the decision to pull the plug on coverage will catch hell. For local journalists, particularly reporters who live far away from DC and who work for small media outlets, the conventions give local reporters an opportunity to get up close and personal with members of Congress, staffers and other DC and state political players who seldom make it to Denver, Phoenix, Reno and other places in the far west and Pacific Coast
Posted by: Harrison Chastang | August 13, 2008 at 09:17 AM
Mark: Thanks for the post. I share your sentiments and explore what some of the local and regional newspapers are doing for convention -- sending one or two people, or none... @ http://tinyurl.com/5gbwas
Posted by: Michele McLellan | August 13, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Mark, long time...it's really a story about the growth of blogs who themselves will be stories us in the MSM will be covering. They just need stuff to write about, me included, and for two weeks there is an endless supply of stories. I go cuz of the sideshows and all the off-campus events where news is made and digested. Most of us won't cover floor action, though I'll admit to having a soft spot for the old guy or woman in the crazy hat and buttons. pb
Posted by: Washington Whispers | August 13, 2008 at 03:11 PM
My paper is sending more people than ever, which is hard to do given that fewer people than ever work at the paper.
I'm stunned we're going. That week is back to school week. If we spent the resources and effort on the challenges facing our local schools our readers would be far better served.
But you can only bang your head against the wall so many times. If the people running the paper keep saying, "we have to send you" I can only try not to go so many times.
Posted by: spend it while you can | August 16, 2008 at 08:15 PM