Social Securty, DeWine, the media, and what Dems should do

Occasionally MCDAC sends out email messages to media outlets trying to prod them to cover certain stories. One of those was sent out earlier this year about Mike DeWine voting in favor of the DeMint amendment. This amendment to the budget bill would have created private accounts for Social Security and would have eliminated survivors' benefits for widows, widowers, and children of deceased workers. In our message we argued that Ohio voters needed to know about this vote before the November election so that they could factor this vote into their decision in the Brown-DeWine race. Email responses we received from two reporters at a particular Ohio newspaper were very instructive and also very frustrating.

Bascially their reponse was that the fact that DeWine voted for the DeMint amendment was not news because (1). everyone knows that Social Security "reform" won't happen this year; (2). it's not fair to cherry-pick DeWine's votes for political purposes because that is exactly what the Republicans did in 2004 to Kerry and Democrats complained about that practice; and (3). DeWine voted in favor of some amendments proposed by Democrats and we weren't complaining about those votes.

Obviously these responses don't bear critical analysis. The fact that Bush's privatization plans are not likely to be passed this year has nothing to do with whether Ohio voters should be aware of DeWine's support for Social Security privatization. Indeed, since DeWine had carefully avoided either supporting or opposing Bush's privatization plans in 2005, his vote on the DeMint amendment was particularly instructive because it gave us an indictation on how he would vote if the plan ever came before the Senate. DeWine's support of other Democratic proposals doesn't really mean one thing or another in terms of Social Security.

What was frustrating about these responses was that the reporters were insisting that politics be looked at as a "game" with no relationship to the daily lives of literally millions of Ohioans. Since the "game" wasn't going to be won this year by supporters of Bush's destruction of Social Security it wasn't worth covering. Further, it is somehow violating the rules of the "game" to actually point out how DeWine votes because of complaints from Kerry supporters in 2004 and because DeWine supports other Democratic proposals.

Voters don't look at politics as a "game", they look at it as affecting goverment which affects their lives. They want to know that candidates are going to do once they are in office. Democratic accountability depends of voters receving such information. If the media refuses to supply such information, then how are voters supposed to hold candidates accountable for their positions by their votes?

The other interesting thing about this interaction is that both reporters engaged in a dialogue with us regarding both the DeWine vote and their newspaper's decision not to cover that vote. Although they didn't change their positions, they at least gave us the courtesy of replying, and indeed, were far more forthcoming in their responses than we expected. Obviously this exchange wouldn't have been possible before email.

Based on the above, here is our suggestion: Democrats should make an effort to gather email addresses of reporters and other media personnel and then make sure those email addresses are known to Democratic organizations. Those addresses should be used in an attempt to influence coverage of both politics and government. They should not be used to harass, vilify, or demean reporters and others, such activities are rude and counter-productive. Democrats should use email to engage reporters in a dialogue with the goal of making sure the Democratic message is heard.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the republication of the above without attribution.