|
Does the media cover bipartisanship? According to a recent study from George Mason University and Starts With Us reported by The Hill, signs point to no.
The study compared the press coverage of the seven most partisan members of Congress (four Republicans and three Democrats) to the seven most bipartisan members (three Republicans and four Democrats). The report found that "hyper-partisan" politicians got four times the news coverage of their bipartisan colleagues. To put that into a little more perspective, consider this quote: "The most partisan member of Congress, Marjorie Taylor Greene, generated nearly ten times as much press coverage in the 2022 election cycle as the least partisan member, Don Bacon, …."
The report adds hard numbers to press coverage, finding that Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared 335 times in major news outlets. In contrast, Bacon, a Republican representative from Nebraska, appeared in 34 stories even though Bacon was in a highly contested election while MTG was waltzing to a victory in the same election cycle.
What does it say about us, America in general, not just the media, that the most polarizing members of Congress are running away with press coverage? Part of the blame has to lay at the feet of those members who are actively trying to get covered by the media. It's hard to blame them for an over-abundance of coverage because also, for better or worse, they understand what their constituents want and are giving it to them. MTG's whole gig revolves around becoming a politician and a political celebrity, so it makes sense that she would seek the limelight.
My question about whether we care about bipartisanship has more to do with those of us who consume the stories that news outlets report. And, to some extent, to how those outlets cover characters like MTG. It is a shame that, after having a reality tv star become president, much of political coverage feels more like Reality Steve than hard news. What is more shameful is how readers have rewarded those outlets by giving views, clicks, and shares to stories of MTG and similar politicians saying outlandish things.
I do not suggest we bury our heads in the sand and ignore what politicians like MTG say. We often cover the craziness on the Right on this blog, after all. There must be some middle ground between ignoring those saying outrageous things and fully embracing the crazy while expressing outrage, whether genuine or as performance art.
And part of that middle ground has to include acknowledging regular politicians doing ordinary things like governing. It's easy to share and talk about whatever wild fabrication MTG has come with for the day, but that gives oxygen to a woman who does not need anymore. Instead, we should spend more time discussing the meat and potatoes of politics. MTG is not looking to govern, but Don Bacon might be. We should cover, read about, share, and talk about these kinds of politicians. It's not that we should ignore MTG, it's good to be aware of what she is saying, but there is a difference between being aware and fanning the flames. And if news outlets saw that stories about MTG got them fewer clicks and page views, they'd be more inclined to give her less space and instead get back to more important news.
While there may not be much we can do in terms of deciding what news gets covered and how, there are a few things we can keep in mind:
1) Before sharing a story or an article, asking why you wish to share the story might be helpful. If there is good information in the story that people need to know, share it away. But if you wish to express outrage, it may be better to do that privately with trusted friends.
2) Be intentional about sharing substantive stories. The TMZ-type reports will get their coverage, but if we wish to get away from the celebrity of politicians like MGT, we must be more conscious of sharing simple stories covering everyday politics.
| 
