Campaign Remedies

By: Joe Strupp So how did we do? Did reporters get carried away on swift boats and mired in National Guard records from 30 years ago and ignore plans for health care, taxes, and the environment? Did the never-ending polling and "horse-race" stories go overboard? If so, do newspapers still deserve praise for increased fact-checking of ads and stump statements? And what about debate coverage? Did that bulge in Bush's back garner too much or not enough attention?

Aiming to compile a report card on the just-completed race for president, E&P asked more than a dozen key journalistic participants and observers to assess the good, bad, and ugly of campaign 2004. In the end, like President Bush and Sen. Kerry, they agreed to, well, not agree.

For those who ventured a grade, the press got anywhere from a B+ to a C-. Many reporters, however, got high marks for climbing out of the campaign planes and Washington offices and following the ground-war story more than ever. Some observers hinted that next time around, this may be the main element of coverage.

"It costs $1,000 per day to be on the campaign trail, more if you are with the president," explains Marc Sandalow, Washington bureau chief for the San Francisco Chronicle. "You could spend that same amount of money and parachute into Ohio for a week and really talk to people." Still, as David Broder of The Washington Post points out: "We understood the role of the churches and religious groups, but we did not come close to gauging their potential impact."