What I Learned
A sojourn in politics showed me why the press is so often lazy and why telling the truth is not always the best policy
Richard Stengel
Journalists don't clap.
For 15 years, as a writer and reporter listening to politicians
speak, I'd affected the universal pose of my brethren: a slightly
bored indifference, perhaps jotting down a note here and there,
raising an eyebrow, riffling through the prepared text in search
of a quote--but never, ever clapping.
But there I was in Crystal City, Mo., on an overcast fall day in
1999, listening to a candidate I believed in, a candidate I had
actually signed up to work for, a candidate who was uttering
words I had helped write, and yet some magnetic force was keeping
my palms apart. Old habits die hard, but, hey, I wasn't a
journalist anymore, and I put my hands together.
Very liberating.
Earlier that summer I had left my job as a senior editor at TIME
to become a senior adviser and chief speechwriter for the
presidential campaign of former Senator Bill Bradley, whom I had
known and admired since he came to talk to one of my classes at
Princeton. A few weeks after I signed on, I mentioned during a
strategy session that in an interview in a certain
newsmagazine--oh, O.K., TIME--the Vice President seemed to have
overstated his involvement in the creation of the earned income
tax credit. The campaign's ad director leaned over to me and
whispered, "Welcome to the dark side."
I didn't think I was on the dark side. I still don't. But it
wasn't the side I was used to, and my time there taught me a lot
about both politics and journalism. I had just assumed, for
example, that I would be good at spinning journalists--after all,
I was one of them. But I was a bust. My instinct was to give a
direct answer to a direct question. Mistake. After one of the
early debates, I was talking to a scrum of reporters and was
asked about a certain line of attack by our rivals. "It's
stupid," I said. And then quickly added, "That's off the record."
Suddenly, the pack was shouting, "Hey, you know the rules; it's
too late!" I did, and it was. Here are a handful of other rules
that I learned--or was rudely reminded of:
SPINNING IS JUST A EUPHEMISM FOR LYING
Ex-Clinton spokesman Mike McCurry once said the job of a press
secretary was "telling the truth slowly." It's a lovely phrase,
Mike, but untrue. Spinning is selling a version of events that
you want others to believe rather than the version that you know
to be true. In my book, that's lying. It's telling a journalist
that, no, that incredibly lame answer the candidate gave in the
debate about Social Security--to which you privately said to
yourself, "Where the hell did that come from?"--was exactly what
we wanted to say. Which leads me to Rule 2:
DON'T DENY REALITY
If a reporter asks how you're doing in California, and you're down 30
points, don't say, "We're gonna win it." At least say something
like, "It's going to be a struggle." The press appreciates candor
and generally doesn't punish you for it. Look at what John McCain
got away with. Speaking of McCain, here's Rule 3 for presidential
candidates:
TRUTH TELLERS SELDOM WIN Most voters don't like to hear
unpleasant truths. And God forbid you ever imply that voters are
lazy and don't understand the issues. If you insist on telling
the truth, at least do it with a smile. Even the press prefers
this. Happy warriors almost always trump truth tellers. Which
brings us to Rule 4:
IF YOU JOIN THE CIRCUS, YOU'VE GOT TO GO UP ON THE TRAPEZE If
you're crazy enough to run for President, you have to do all the
ridiculous things people expect candidates to do, including
answering the same dumb question for the 112th time. You can't be
above it all or behave as if you think the Republic is lucky to
have you. Voters and reporters want to see how much you want it.
So kiss more babies, eat Polish sausages and don't bother issuing
that 37-page report on your prescription-drug benefit plan, and
I'll tell you why:
THE DEVIL--AND YOUR OPPONENT'S ATTACK ADS--IS IN THE DETAILS
Sure, it's nice for a candidate to say he has thought through
nuclear proliferation, and here's how he would deal with India's
medium-range ballistic missiles. But the more detailed your
policies, the more ammunition you give to your opponent--and the
press--to use against you. Remember, the President is a CEO; he
doesn't have to know how to make the widget, only that people
need more and better widgets. If you lay out the fine print of
your plan, even the press might be shamed into doing a little
work to see if they actually work. Which leads me to Rule 6.
DON'T EXPECT THE PRESS TO CARRY ANY WATER FOR YOU A campaign
colleague who researched the records of rival candidates liked to
say, "If reporters did their job, I wouldn't have mine." I'm not
saying that all campaign correspondents are indolent and
superficial; just that if you want them to write a probing
critique of an opponent, you'd better hand it to them on a silver
platter. Campaigns do a whole lot more investigative reporting
than investigative reporters do.
And even if you give journalists the facts, they're often
reluctant to go with them. When I was on the other side, I was
constantly saying under my breath to reporters, "Make a
judgment." Being committed to some he-said-she-said idea of
"objectivity" often makes a journalist a neutral vessel of
distortion. Correcting a candidate's mistake is not subjective;
it's objective. At the same time, I noticed that people in
politics tend to think journalists are biased toward one
candidate or another. This is a deep misconception, which leads
to Rule 7:
SURE, JOURNALISTS ARE BIASED--IN FAVOR OF THEIR OWN STORY No
reporter is going to turn down a story that will put her byline
on the front page. I was always dismayed when people in the
campaign said certain journalists were on "our side" or on "their
side." Journalists are on the side of the story that gets them
the most attention. But then why, you may ask, does the press
always seem to be doing the same story at the same time? Answer:
THE MEDIA ARE LIKE A SCHOOL OF FISH When you're watching the
Discovery Channel, do you ever wonder how those enormous schools
of fish can all magically turn at the same moment, as if they
were reading one another's mind? The reason is, they're not
looking out at the water, they're looking at one another. That's
how the press works too. Journalists spend a lot more time
worrying about what other journalists think of their stories than
about what readers or viewers might want or need to know. And
because reporters tend not to be the most original folks, they're
afraid of getting either too far ahead or too far behind. That's
why, if things are going wrong with your campaign, you've got to
right it lickety-split. In two days the media horde can undo
strategies that took months to create.
So is there some secret behind those cunning campaign
strategies? Actually, what I discovered is simply that:
CAMPAIGNS ARE ON OFFENSE, AND THE PRESS IS ON DEFENSE By that I
mean, a campaign knows which move it's going to make, while
reporters just react and try to figure it out. It's like in
basketball--the guy with the ball always takes the first step; the
defender has to adjust. Let's suddenly send the candidate to
South Dakota. Why? Well, we're not exactly sure; let the press
figure it out. Yes, there is more science to it than reporters
think, but there's also a lot more guesswork masquerading as
knowledge. And speaking of basketball, here's my final rule:
WHEN YOUR CANDIDATE IS 6 FT. 5, NEVER TAKE THE SEAT OPPOSITE
HIM ON A SMALL PLANE When I made my first campaign trip to New
Hampshire, I wondered why the senior staff got on the plane so
early. I got the last seat, which was across from the candidate,
who liked to stretch his legs and spread his papers across his
knees. I got on very early the next time.
Stengel is editor of Time.com. Go to time.com/Campaign 2000 for
more election coverage
|