Howell's dilemma

(continued)

by Dan Kennedy

Tom Patterson, co-director of the Vanishing Voter Project at Harvard's Kennedy School, has this to say about how the media judge political candidates: "The press needs some standard of newsworthiness in order to make judgments about what will be covered and what will not, and, in the realm of elections, a horse-race judgment is about as good a benchmark as a journalist has." Yet Patterson also says that a minor-party candidate deserves coverage if he or she "is a carrier of a point of view that is widely held and highly significant, and is not being offered by any of the stronger contenders."

Howell would appear to fail the first of Patterson's tests, but to pass the second. And if a candidate's views are "highly significant," as Patterson puts it, what business do the media have giving them less than a full airing merely because the person who holds them probably won't win? To be sure, the case shouldn't be overstated. Every news organization in Massachusetts could cover Howell daily between now and the time the polls close, and she probably would still fall well short of victory. And electability has to count for something in determining how much coverage a candidate deserves. Still, the Howell campaign makes for an interesting case study of how time-tested journalistic judgments can marginalize a candidate who may well deserve better.

To date, the media have neither ignored Howell completely nor given her anywhere near the sort of heavy coverage afforded Mitt Romney, a Republican businessman who in 1994 actually led Kennedy in the polls for a while before fading badly at the end.

So far, the story with the highest visibility was published on the front page of the Boston Sunday Globe on October 1: a 1200-plus-word profile of Howell by Brian MacQuarrie that treated her as a substantive if unlikely candidate. Globe political columnist Brian Mooney has also called for Kennedy to debate both Howell and Robinson. (At press time, the Kennedy campaign had still not publicly committed to debating anyone.) The Boston Herald's Karen Crummy (on September 17) and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette's Elaine Thompson (on October 4) have published shorter, inside-the-paper profiles as well.

But let's face it. Unless Kennedy agrees to a series of debates, or unless the newspapers and local television stations start giving the Senate race saturation coverage, the first exposure most people will have to Howell will take place when they walk into the voting booth on November 7 and see her name on the ballot. And the truth is that the media are no more likely to grant Howell her fondest desire than Kennedy is.

"She's a credible candidate, and she's got things to say," says WCVB-TV (Channel 5) political reporter Janet Wu. "But it's kind of hard to argue for too many stories on the US Senate race when there are lots of other stories that need to be covered." Andy Hiller, political editor for WHDH-TV (Channel 7), says, "I suppose my bottom line is that Carla Howell deserves at least as much coverage as Jack E. Robinson, or maybe more. Jack E. Robinson is interesting in an unusual-specimen kind of way. But Carla Howell is interesting to people who are turned off by politics." Even so, Hiller concedes, that still won't add up to more than a small handful of stories.

That sentiment -- that Howell deserves to be taken seriously, but not covered extensively -- is echoed again and again by media decision-makers. The Globe's political editor, Carolyn Ryan, calls Howell an "intriguing candidate," yet adds: "Are we going to put a reporter on Carla Howell exclusively from here to the election? No." Joe Sciacca, Ryan's counterpart at the Herald, says Howell "has demonstrated some viability," but concedes that the Senate campaign will not be covered extensively "if it's not perceived to be a race to begin with." Jon Keller, political reporter for WLVI-TV (Channel 56), finds Howell more credible than Robinson, but adds, "It doesn't merit day-to-day coverage because it's not a real race." Fred Thys, who covers politics for WBUR Radio (90.9 FM), admits that viability is a huge factor in determining how to cover the race. "That's not the way we're supposed to do it, but that's the reality of it," he says.

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | Next

---

Dan Kennedy's work can be accessed from his Web site: http://www.dankennedy.net

---

Dan Kennedy can be reached at dkennedy[a]phx.com

---

Articles from July 24, 1997 & before can be accessed here

---