August 1, 1977
Page 25853
CONGRESS AND THE MEDIA
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, Joe McCaffrey, a veteran of 33 years reporting in Washington, paused recently to analyze the uneasy relationship between Congress and the media, and to reflect on the causes of public discontent with the Congress. As always, I found his thoughts well stated and to the point. To share his recent commentary on WMAL radio with my colleagues, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the commentary was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
VOICE FROM THE CAPITAL
(By Joseph McCaffrey)
Congress is very nervous about the media, and the media is becoming very nervous about Congress.
It is a "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" sort of thing.
Did the media bring about the Congressional nervousness, or did Congress make the media nervous and the media in turn paid back the Congress?
Congressman David Obey made a speech in May to the Western Wisconsin Press Association in which he talked about the relationship between Congress and the media. Some reporters thought this was the beginning of a vendetta against them.
Now, shaking his head in disbelief, Obey says the only thing that was reported in detail about the speech was his listing of the free perquisites provided to news people covering the Congress.
"But that was not my point," Obey says, "I only used the media perks as an example to expand on my concern about cheap shots by members of the press and also some members of the Congress."
Obey sees a growing tendency in Congress and in the media to pander to popular prejudices, providing in overexpanding quantity information "more of a muckraking nature and not of an analytical nature."
I would agree with the Wisconsin House member. The Washington reporting corps is off with the hounds in the search of the "Jazzy" story. For example, in covering the very complicated story of the Labor-Hew appropriations bill most all the attention, or at least 98% of the attention, was focused on the abortion issue. Yet there were items in that bill, funding for the cancer program, for one example, which were of greater and more significant importance.
This is the fault of television. Television reporting focuses most of its attention below the belt no matter what the subject. The "grabber" is the big thing in television news reporting, substance comes last, if it comes at all.
The ideal television news story is a mad gunman holed up in an apartment building, accessible to the cameras. This is meat for TV news, and it almost seems as if TV news directors say a prayer that the next day will bring one of these deranged people into their net.
So too the coverage of the Congress is, in the minds of some desk editors, and many reporters, the bed romps of a few members, rather than the committee and floor work of most members.
One reporter said the other day that the only story she enjoyed reporting was when she "had someone by the short hair. How many such stories she had been able to develop I did not ask.
But there is a wide difference between reporting shortcomings on the Hill on the part of members and staff, and the taking of "cheap shots."
The other day there was a widely reported story about an Ohio Congressman who had his staff trucking discarded books from the Library of Congress to his office for, in most cases, his own personal use, although the provision is that such books are to be sent to libraries and schools which could use them. Thousands of books were involved.
On the night this was reported the newspaper lay open to that story on my desk. Someone stopped at my desk and pointing to the story asked, "Joe, is there anyone up there who is honest?"
For a minute I was shocked at the question, but then I realized this was probably a normal reaction for anyone who knew the Hill only from TV and newspapers and did not know its people. My answer is, most of them are honest, very honest, but they are overshadowed by those who fall by the wayside.
The library book story helps build a negative image of Congress.
Whose fault is it? Not, certainly the fault of those who researched and wrote the story. No, the fault lies right inside the Congress itself. The actions of a Wayne Hays, or of a Neal Gallegher were not forced by the news media. They were naturally, reported by the media.
But then, it may be too much to expect 535 men and women to stay on the straight and narrow, temptations being what they are.
Once someone strays, the only way we know about it, usually, is because the sinner is caught by the media.
I seriously doubt if Congress makes any attempt to restrict reporters on Capitol Hill, and I also doubt that reporters will be less vigilant in watching members of Congress. Regretfully, I would also say I doubt if the cheap shot artists will refrain from their speciality.