Question:
How can the media consistently deliver the political coverage citizens deserve?
Attack ads, staged events, campaign lies…secret videos, dramatic tweets, big money. This is all familiar ground in political reporting. Could different political coverage better help voters make their decisions?
What regular practices might combine the best of both the Fourth and Fifth Estates? Is there an ethical obligation to make political coverage directly relevant to your audiences’ lives? Is there an ethical mandate to understand the public’s needs and demand that politicians respond? How might the media improve the system?
This is part of a series of discussions to lay groundwork for a political coverage best practices guide.
Answers: Remember to refresh often to see latest comments!
63 answers so far.
-
Dean M Gray says:
March 11, 2013 at 8:34 pm
-
Emily Harris says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:53 am
-
Bob Steele says:
October 4, 2012 at 12:01 pm
-
Emily Harris says:
October 4, 2012 at 12:04 pm
-
Bob Steele says:
October 4, 2012 at 12:08 pm
-
Nicole Staudinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 2:46 pm
-
Doug Oplinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 12:02 pm
-
Emily Harris says:
October 4, 2012 at 12:15 pm
-
Doug Oplinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 12:20 pm
-
Doug Oplinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 12:25 pm
-
Doug Oplinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 12:28 pm
-
Emily Harris says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:31 am
-
Emily Harris says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:33 am
-
Doug Oplinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:40 am
-
Doug Oplinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:44 am
-
Nicole Staudinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 2:24 pm
-
Bob Steele says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:53 am
-
Emily Harris says:
October 4, 2012 at 10:57 am
-
Doug Oplinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 10:58 am
-
Bob Steele says:
October 4, 2012 at 10:58 am
-
Emily Harris says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:03 am
-
Doug Oplinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:06 am
-
Jan Leach says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:08 am
-
Bob Steele says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:10 am
-
Doug Oplinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:11 am
-
Emily Harris says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:12 am
-
Doug Oplinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:15 am
-
Bob Steele says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:16 am
-
Emily Harris says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:16 am
-
Emily Harris says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:17 am
-
Jan Leach says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:18 am
-
Bob Steele says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:19 am
-
Emily Harris says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:19 am
-
Elizabeth Nalewajk says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:19 am
-
Nicole Staudinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:19 am
-
Doug Oplinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:22 am
-
Elizabeth Nalewajk says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:24 am
-
Bob Steele says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:24 am
-
Emily Harris says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:25 am
-
Jan Leach says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:26 am
-
Doug Oplinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:26 am
-
Bob Steele says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:27 am
-
Elizabeth Nalewajk says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:31 am
-
Bob Steele says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:31 am
-
Doug Oplinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:33 am
-
Jan Leach says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:34 am
-
Jan Leach says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:36 am
-
Bob Steele says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:36 am
-
Elizabeth Nalewajk says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:38 am
-
Jan Leach says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:39 am
-
Emily Harris says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:41 am
-
Bob Steele says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:42 am
-
Bob Steele says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:46 am
-
Emily Harris says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:46 am
-
Elizabeth Nalewajk says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:50 am
-
Jan Leach says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:53 am
-
Doug Oplinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 11:53 am
-
Doug Oplinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 12:00 pm
-
Elizabeth Nalewajk says:
October 4, 2012 at 12:03 pm
-
Elizabeth Nalewajk says:
October 4, 2012 at 12:09 pm
-
Sally James says:
October 4, 2012 at 12:11 pm
-
Elizabeth Nalewajk says:
October 4, 2012 at 12:28 pm
-
Doug Oplinger says:
October 4, 2012 at 4:24 pm
| ParticipantsSaul Alinsky’s description of a community activist quite accurately also descibe the journalist. In his book RULES FOR RADICALS he writes “the question is the mark” as a definition that serves both quite well.
We’re coming close to the end of this live conversation window. Thank you, Doug Oplinger, and Bob Steele, and everyone else, for taking part. This conversation will move to “slow-drip” mode: Open to the community for people to weigh in anytime. All participants will get an email notification so can come back and respond.
But before we go, I’d like to ask people to weigh in on the idea of making political coverage directly relevant to your audiences’ lives. For example, covering foreign policy in a publication aimed at young people by reporting on where your t-shirt comes from. What does “directly relevant” mean, and how important is that in the various responsibilities of political coverage the media has? Particularly in this media business climate where one guiding mantra is for news organizations to find their niche audiences, to whom they can provide unique content.
I do think the “relevancy” element is very important, Emily. Journalists can do meaningful reporting on issues (like foreign policy) that is wasted if that reporting isn’t consumed by the public. To be sure, journalists have to make sure that the “niche audience” approach isn’t undermined by dominant business values. Yes, there are good reasons to serve the niche audiences, reasons that can bring in revenue. But the goal is to better inform those segments of the audience in ways that create greater citizen interest, involvement in community (and national and global) affairs. So, I’m all in favor of finding ethically legitimate ways of covering issues and events in order to reach specific audiences.
Bob, can you give me an example?
I want to keep thinking more about this….but I’m wondering about the coverage of youth sports. That’s big for so many community newspapers and local TV stations. There is a big business-model imperative in that coverage, but there is also a strong journalistic reason if the reporting focuses on more than wins/losses and pics of the players. Good journalism of youth sports explore the health and medical issues as well as matters of zealous parents, etc. I’m wondering what specific examples others might offer on this…
Input from the Twitter stream from Randy Reaume (@CANT_CON_ME):
@journaccel start by announcing that all politicians who wont answer just give talkin points and deflect will not get coverage no free B.S.
Great question. The challenge is defining what is relevant.
How do you write about Afghanistan – our nation’s longest war — when no one cares, yet three times as many Americans have died there in the last three weeks than died in Libya on Sept. 11. The answers aren’t easy.
That’s a question I grappled with directly when I covered Iraq (and Afghanistan a little bit.) My friends here find much coverage to be, bomb, bomb, this side, that side, sort of not making a difference in the long run. Even with American and other lives at stake, voter money involved.
As we worked on our project this year looking at the issues that divide Americans, it was frustrating for me personally that war never came up, or was very low on the list. My son was in Afghanistan at the time. More than 5,000 Americans had lost their lives, and we had added $1
sorry — hit submit too soon. We had added $1.4 trillion to the national debt.
So, we had a focus group with three women whose husbands or sons were in combat. Their stories were powerful. Those of us who sat behind the mirror were in tears. Mary Beth Breckenridge constructed an emotional narrative. Still, I don’t know whether anyone cared about the story.
http://www.ohio.com/news/local/military-families-feel-alone-live-as-if-bad-news-is-imminent-1.320464
Most news organizations don’t have the resources to do a story like this, and even if they did, the question would be raised, is this relevant to our audience?
I want to shift a bit, and point to something Andrea Seabrook said recently in an interview. She just left covering Congress for NPR to start her own podcast and blog, Decode DC, and she was explaining why. She said this:
We political reporters — and Washington reporters — spend way too much time covering what these people say. What they say is so overrefined and spun and full of half-truths that I feel like covering what they say — or overcovering what they say — does a real disservice to your audience.
My question is how far do the ethical responsibilities of journalists to hold public officials accountable? When do the responsibilities of the public begin? Is there a way for this to be more of a partnership?
This relates to another issue I wanted to hear people in this conversation weigh in on: What regular practices might combine the best of both the Fourth and Fifth Estates? Can we start a list for the ethical best practices guide to political coverage that will come out of these conversations?
In Akron this year, we’re conducting an experiment with the Civic Commons, an online discussion site for Northeast Ohio, which I think you would consider part of the Fifth Estate.
We’re publishing stories out of focus groups and confidential one-on-one interviews to explore the many different life experiences of angry people. It’s called the America Today project.
After each story, we’ve been giving readers a choice – comment on our traditional and wild anonymous reader page, or go to the moderated Civic Commons where you have to identify yourself.
That’s been an eye opener. Very few have chosen the Civic Commons, and instead continue with the vitriol that has defined the comment pages.
So we’re trying something new. As we work with the community on a civility engagement project, we’re giving them the tools to approach public officials about toning down the rhetoric, and asking them to post all of their communications on the Civic Commons. They can talk to one another there, share ideas and perhaps draw in some public officials, too. That has the potential for being a totally transparent citizen engagement project that we’ll cover as it unfolds.
I am a believer in transparency, too. We recently approached to U.S. Senate campaigns and asked them if they would sit with us to discuss the community civility project and how it might apply to campaigns.
They both rejected the offer. So we published the dialog between us and the campaigns so readers could see first hand how the campaigns reacted.
I think it’s important for readers to see how elected officials interact with reporters.
We had a public meeting at which we discussed our lack of success with the campaigns. Now, some citizens are going to duplicate our effort, which I mentioned above.
Input from the Twitter stream, from Jack Becker (@jackabecker), researcher at the Kettering Foundation:
@journaccel I think we need journalism that frames issues democratically, so citizens see themselves as problem solvers, not clients.
On Emily’s post about Andrea Seabrook’s query….”My question is how far do the ethical responsibilities of journalists to hold public officials accountable? When do the responsibilities of the public begin? Is there a way for this to be more of a partnership? There is a “partnership” element in some ways, I believe. I might term it a blending of “interdependence” between the public and journalists in addition to the journalistic role of “independence.” I think one way to help the public hold the public officials accountable is to provide more substantive reporting on the “process” that is part of politics and government. Both journalists and citizens should scrutinize the “way” government officials and politicians go about their work. We can’t just look at the “end product” of the process to judge quality. We must scrutinize the process to determine why public officials act as they do and examine how they go about their work and their decision-making. We need to learn everything we can about what’s behind the actions and the words of the powerful to hold them accountable.
Welcome everyone, to today’s conversation about improving the system of political coverage. As you know, this is part of a series of conversations that began at the 2012 Poynter/Kent State media ethics workshop. Later, the ideas, questions and experiences you share here will inform a new Ethics Best Practices Guide to political coverage, to be put together by journalism prof Jan Leach at Kent State University.
You can join this conversation anytime. Today we are joined by Bob Steele, director of the Prindle Institute for Ethics at DePauw University and a longtime ethics scholar with The Poynter Institute, and Doug Oplinger, managing editor of the Akron Beacon Journal, who gave some really stimulating ideas about the ethical responsibility the media has to improve political coverage. Welcome to both of you, thanks so much for being here!
Hello, looking forward to the conversation.
Greetings. This is important territory and I look forward to our conversation today.
Doug, I wanted to start by asking you to elaborate on a point you raised at Kent State. You said that media should get in control of the pipeline of information flow, even reverse it, with a mandate to understand citizens and “send that knowledge up” to political leaders.What do you imagine reporters, editors, etc. doing differently? And why do you think this is important, in the journalistic ethics sense?
I use a couple of analogies to describe how I think we’re in trouble, one of which is the pipeline.
We need to deliver stories about people up the pipeline to public officials, and let officials react. That requires reversing the flow in many cases, because right now we’re allowing too many politicians to shove their own agendas down the pipe.
And if you think about it, that changes the entire relationship with the public. If we’re just delivering the news from government and organizations, citizens can take it or leave it. And if that news doesn’t pertain to their daily lives, they leave it.
But if we’re listening to citizens, and delivering their stories up the pipeline for officials to react, we become valuable, and they also watch the officials to see if they care.
I’m particularly interested in how to improve political coverage in an ethical way coming out of last night’s debates. Does it matter who “won”? Should reporters analyze debate style vs. leadership? Haven’t most voters made up their minds?
Well put, Doug. I see this as both honoring our duty of serving the needs of the citizens and our duty of holding the public officials (and other powerful people in our communities) accountable. It’s true the relationship changes – or at least it is evolving – but I don’t think we really lose the spirit of the principle of journalistic independence that is a linchpin of our obligation to pursue and report the truth as best as possible.
I want to go to my other analogy first, then come back to Jan’s question.
Sometimes I think that the news media and public officials are floating on a fishing trawler alongside an aircraft carrier carrying the entire U.S. population. While the American people go about their business, we — media and public officials — are on this hapless trawler scrapping with each other. Once in awhile we send up a semaphore in hopes that the carrier will pay attention to us.
We need to get real. That carrier has developed its own social life and social network, and we need to either become part of it, or get lost at sea.
I worry that we spend too much time covering government, allowing people in government to dictate the agenda. We say we know what the people want – we see the polls – but in the process of covering the government and feeding the news cycle, we don’t talk to them. There are some incredible stories on the streets.
There were so few questions actually answered last night! At that point, does style matter more than substance? Does how a leader speaks, responds, acts under pressure part of the information voters use to make up their minds? And if so, should it be part of the journalistic assessment of a debate?
I was troubled last night by some of the analysis. One network had a pool of undecided voters waiting in the wings. They asked those voters how they felt about the performance. That’s a tradition among journalists. However, in Ohio, only 1 percent of the likely voters are still undecided. In essence, the undecideds are outliers. They’re not normal.
I believe there is a huge difference between journalists skillfully “assessing” a debate and the lousy practice of “scoring” a debate. It’s counterproductive in a big way to emphasize the “winner and loser” rather than meaningfully analyzing the substance of the candidate’s positions and their ability to articulate those positions.
Bob, do you think the media has an ethical obligation to represent one “side” or the other? (Is it fair to think of politicians as on one side and people on the other? At least at the national level? They seem so often to live in a different world.)
Doug, I ask about sides because that’s one sense I get from the pipeline analogy.
Bob & Doug, I worry that the public doesn’t care about journalistic principles of accuracy, transparency and authentication, especially related to political reporting. How can we get their attention and uphold our integrity?
I think the “side” framing is almost always problematic – both journalistic and ethically. Issues have multiple sides, not two sides. And I believe the dynamic of the politicians and the people is also much more complex. So I worry greatly if we think of an ethical obligation as representing one “side” or the other. I believe the journalists’ obligation is to seek out and report as many perspectives as possible and to embrace the complexity of the issues and the political process.
Jan, what do you see that makes you think that the public doesn’t care about those journalistic principles?
Doug, I am a graduate student in journalism at the University of Oklahoma. I’m wondering, by what you’re saying, the new role of a journalist is to inform the politicians what the people want instead of reporting to the people what the politicians are up to? Isn’t it the politicians’ job to learn what the people want? If we reverse the pipeline, aren’t we essentially doing the job now of the people we have elected to know about their constituents and their needs? This seems like we have taken away our own integrity and turning into informants for politicians and I think this is an ethical compromise journalists should have to make.
This just in from our Twitter stream, from Sally James (@jamesian), medical writer &volunteer president at NW Science Writers:
@journaccel One way is asking politicians to answer science questions http://www.sciencedebate.org/wa2012/ Making them have positions on science issues.
Bob’s point is really a good one. The trap of political coverage is he-said-she-said reporting. That’s just he-lied-she-lied journalism. There are several hundred million sides to every issue.
I apologize for the typo, I meant ‘an ethical compromise that journalists should not have to make.’
On Elizabeth’s good question…I’m not sure this is merely reversing the pipeline, but adding an additional pipeline (or channel, if you will) to facilitate effective connections and spirited multi-directional communication between the stakeholders.
That link from Sally @jamesian has a great list of questions! http://www.sciencedebate.org/wa2012/ Here are a couple from it:
– What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change—and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross state and national boundaries?
-What actions would you support to enforce vaccinations in the interest of public health, and in what circumstances should exemptions be allowed?
Sally, do you mean that will serve voters better in helping them get useful information, or that you think they’ll actually have clear, specific, answers? The two I pulled seem like science questions that carry a lot of politic baggage.
How can the media “make” politicians have answers on specific issues?
Emily, there is so much partisanship that leads to self-selecting stories on topics with which people already agree. That leads me to think people don’t care about journalistic independence, authority, accuracy, etc. because they will dismiss points that don’t conform to their pre-set opinions. Another thing that worries me about our responsibilities is the way unsubstantiated info/gossip gets spread as if it’s journalism. The ethics issues around duty to audience, source and the industry get more complicated and, I believe, more important around big elections.
Elizabeth: If we as journalists are to hold public officials accountable, we first need to know what’s going on with the people to whom we are responsible. Citizens don’t have access to elected officials in the way that campaign contributors and lobbyists do. Someone needs to deliver the citizens’ message to officials. And when we know what people are thinking, and are aware of their needs, we can then ask better questions of elected officials.
…building on my other thought to Elizabeth…I don’t see this as an ethical compromise as long as the journalists retain the independence that is essential to effective journalism. The journalists are not turning over the process to the politicians nor taking away the politicians’ role. The journalists are, in fact, using this multiple pipeline approach to hold the politicians accountable while also creating a more effective “arena” where important dialogue can emerge and thrive.
Bob – Isn’t that additional pipeline already opened with talk show hosts? Where is the line drawn for a journalist or should we all become Anderson Coopers and David Gregory’s and the like who do not only report the news, but now participate in daily ‘talk show-style’ shows like The Today Show or The Anderson Cooper Show? Am I now expected to report on the politicians then turn around and do ‘feel good’ stories all in the same day?
Jan, are you suggesting that we not worry about the ethical principle of journalistic independence if the “people” don’t seem to care about it?
Thinking a littlle more about Elizabeth’s question: At the recent Kent State conference, we had a discussion about incivility and polarization, to which a Washington reporter said, hey, politics is a messy business. In our effort this year to understand the polarization in the country, we did more than 20 focus groups, and one of the things we heard over and over was that people don’t like the messiness. It’s not acceptable. So, do we as journalists sit on that information? Do we allow political campaigns to continue with the attacks? The people in our community said they want it to stop. So, with that information, we feel we have an obligation to send that up the pipeline and ask for a response.
Bob, I’m not suggesting we NOT worry about it, I’m wondering how we can report in such a way that the audience cares about it and recognizes the credibility it gives us.
Adding to my response to Bob: How can we report ethically in such a way that the audience cares and recognizes our credibility. My concern is that we can do shoddy, biased reporting that audiences like. It’s more difficult, isn’t it, to maintain independence, keep the pipelines open, listen to citizens, ignore the ‘horse race’ and debate ‘scores’, etc.
Elizabeth, I believe there is a serious ethical problem when journalists wear multiple hats and take on different roles (reporter, analyzer, commentator, program host), often in the same story or program. It’s not just confusing to the viewers/readers/users. It’s often unfair to the people or organizations who are the subject of the journalism. Why would they trust the journalists if the journalist is switching back and forth from reporting to opinion. I also think there’s a serious problem when the public can’t easily discern the difference between journalism, quasi-journalism and information.
Doug – where do we as journalists draw the line then? If I am informing the politicians of what the citizen needs and wants, how can I now ethically report on what the politician is going to do about it? Am I now biased because the politician did what the citizen wanted and I reported it to them or even more so because the politician didn’t or couldn’t do what the citizen wanted? Wouldn’t I naturally be thrilled or angered based on the outcome and now I have picked a side so-to-speak?
Bob, Your last response to Elizabeth seems to nail it re: the messiness and confusion for citizens. What do you recommend as an ethical approach for journalists to uphold independence, fairness?
Doug – even if journalists tried (as you did and are doing at the Beacon Journal) to change the tone of political communication, how can the media make politicians do anything? (Should they even?) Particularly now, with many ways politicians can communicate to voters directly?
Well put, Jan. It is difficult – often extremely difficult – for journalists to take the path that is counter to the public “desire,” especially of that path isn’t consistent with the news organization’s “business model” of reader/viewer/user engagement. That business model is often driven by eyeball-chasing rather than sound journalism. As old-fashioned as it seems, journalists (and their news organizations) have a professional, ethical and societal obligation to inform the citizenry on significant issues, even when the citizens aren’t coming to the faucet for that information.
An ethical approach for journalists to uphold independence, fairness? It requires knowledge and skill to make sure the reporting is substantive and meaningful. It requires knowing whom you serve and why so that your attention and resources aren’t diverted to less important stories. It requires honoring a loyalty to the “truth” by committing resources to covering significant issues no matter the obstacles.
Doug, can you weigh in on the question of reader/viewer/user engagement – and whether that keeps journalists too much following the path of the public “desire” in reporting? In the very difficult business climate today, what do you do if the ethical obligation of informing the citizenry, even when they’re not coming to the faucet, doesn’t help your bottom line?
Bob – I agree. I find it hard to watch Meet the Press and take David Gregory seriously (not matter how much I like him or not) when I see him on The Today Show dancing and being silly. As a journalist and a student of journalism, I can appreciate what he and others who choose to wear many hats do, but it makes it hard I think for others who are not as savvy perhaps. How do we create trust with the citizens enough to gather their stories to take to politicians if this multi-hat type of journalism continues?
Bob & Doug, I embrace Bob’s ideas for an ethical approach but I’d like to hear from Doug how do-able they are in today’s difficult, competitive media environment with fewer readers and finicky advertisers. The ABJ did a story recently about how the public blames the media for incivility in politics. It’s part of a huge commitment to political/community coverage, yet the audience did/does not seem to recognize the commitment. Sigh.
Emily and Elizabeth are pulling me both ways with great questions. One is asking how journalists can do more, and the other asking whether journalists are doing too much.
We have this discussion in the newsroom.
If we accept that politicians have done their homework and our job is to report what they say, then we have lost the franchise. We absolutely must know the needs of the people. Does that mean we have to make our own judgments and then report when politicians do or do not respond to our judgments? Yes.
We are experts. That’s how we become trusted.
The really hard part is deciding how far we should go in advocating for the public. Do we risk becoming part of the story?
In Akron, we have been willing to cross that line many times. After the Los Angeles riots in the 90s, we did a year-long exploration of race relations in the community through data and focus groups. We encountered incredible emotion and a desire to bring about harmony. So the newspaper then asked people in the community if they wanted to do something about the racial divide. We were overwhelmed with the response, and launched the Coming Together project.
All of this project was based on sound journalistic research, and the newspaper’s involvement in the community collaborative was based on the public’s desire.
Some news organizations don’t agree with that philosophy, but Knight-Ridder had a history of it.
Doug – how as journalists do we show we are ‘experts’ to the public? Is it even possible with so much conjecture and tabloid journalism? How are we to distinguish ourselves from that type of journalism in order to prove to the public we are the experts?
Jan – is it honestly hard to believe with so many choices, 24/7 news coverage and multi-hat journalism? If I didn’t know any better, I’d probably blame the media to.
Hi Emily – I am replying to your earlier question about science. I think remaining dedicated to getting questions answered is essential in both ways – it helps the public be informed truly about a candidate’s position on science AND I think it shows their character in how they choose to dodge or truly answer a science question. We have no choice about public literacy on science – forest fires are a great example. That’s science news, not just community news.
Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for your time and allowing me to participate in the discussion. I must actually log off now and attend my ethics class. I believe Bob made a good point about the messiness created with journalists wearing many hats and that Doug is right about journalists being experts, but we must find a happy medium in there for citizens to decide who we as journalists really are otherwise we cannot operate out of either communication pipeline. Again, thank you and have a wonderful day!
Elizabeth: Regarding your question on how journalists establish themselves as experts.
Readers don’t want us to cover a story and tell them what the Democrat said, then the Republican, or the teacher’s union and the school board. They want us to tell them who is lying the most, and who is closest to the truth. And as Bob Steele said, there are more than two stakeholders in every issue.
It requires knowledge of history, doing data, reading the law and all the budget earmarks, finding the studies that pertain to the subject at hand, and personal drama.
That type of reporting is very hard work and, more importantly, courage. But doing so establishes you over time as someone who is trying to bring clarity.
Readers don’t have time for the noise from politicians. They want us to tell them what they need to know so that they can feel informed and make good choices. They appreciate the effort, and turn to a good reporter as someone to be trusted.