If Campaign's a Horserace, What Happens to the Issues?

Beginning of article

Among my most vivid, and painful, memories of life at The New York Times were the long, unproductive meetings on how to cover the issues that preceded every political season. Year after year, decade after decade, both voters and politicians complained that the press spent too much time and space on personality and character of the candidates and too little on how they would deal with the forces that impact people's lives, once elected.

Political reporters with few exceptions do not like to write about issues. They fear being bogged down in dull copy. Even when they consider issues important to the election, they usually find some other aspect of the campaign more compelling and the issues fade into the background. The 1992 presidential election provides a good example. Bill Clinton actually won because voters perceived the economy to be lagging under President Bush's policies and actions.

But that subject was obscured in the avalanche of negative copy that questioned the record and fitness of the candidates. Clinton managed to break through with his message on the economy by going on talk shows and pounding the issue at every campaign stop. But the traditional press, by missing the importance of the issue, missed an opportunity to enlighten the public on the limited, though …