Krugman's Pet Peeve

Krugman wants reporters not stenographers or relationship consultants.

Here is a bit from his post on his NY Times blog where he complains about the failure of reporters as "journalists", you know, the job of reporting what is going on, the inside story, the actual implication of events. Instead he sees them talking about a political issue as if it were a beauty contest or a horse race. They report "he said/she said" and "who's winning" and "crowd reaction" but nothing about the substance of the event:

Why does this happen? I suspect several reasons.

1. It’s easier to research horse-race stuff. To report on policy, a reporter has to master the policy issues fairly well. That’s not easy, especially for journalists who have specialized in up close and personal rather than wonkery...

2. It’s easier to write horse-race stuff. Even if you know the policy issues, writing them so you don’t totally lose your audience is really tricky — I’ve spent years trying to learn the craft, and it still often comes out way too dry. On the other hand, horse-race stuff can be full of personal details.

3. It’s safer to cover the race. If you cover policy, and go beyond dueling quotes, you have to make some factual assertions — and people who prefer to believe otherwise will get mad. ... Much safer to report on ups and downs in the conventional wisdom.

The upshot, of course, is that we’re having a crucial national policy debate in which the great bulk of the news coverage tells people nothing at all about the policy issues.

So that's why you can have a "health care" debate and nobody knows what the issues are in health care!