I’m not generally someone who is interested in making New Year’s resolutions, aside from one dating back quite a few years ago to drink a lot more water and far less coffee. (I’ve stuck to that one religiously with no regrets.) But at the Washington Post, Catherine Rampell penned some resolutions for journalists for 2024 that may be worth a look. Given the sorry state of the legacy media these days, some changes should certainly be considered. She offers three resolutions for journalists and one for readers. At a quick glance, none of them appear particularly harmful or out of bounds, but a deeper analysis will reveal there is a glaring omission here that might not only fail to help matters but could potentially make things even worse. I’ll include her first resolution here, dealing with the problem of focusing on the polls more than the issues.

I don’t entirely disagree with that one in principle because there is definitely more value in educating voters about the issues and what impact (or lack thereof) the results may have on them. But the polls are not without value of their own. Poll results can demonstrate which strategies are effective and which need more work. They can also help groups redirect resources more efficiently. Also, plenty of people just enjoy the entire horserace aspect of political races.

Rampell’s other two resolutions for journos are along similar lines. One involves paying more attention to down-ticket races instead of exclusively focusing on the presidential contest. Her last bit of advice is to ensure that you report on some of the good news (assuming you can find any these days) and not just the bad news. This flies in the face of the eternal journalistic maxim which reliably informs us that “if it bleeds, it leads.” But yes, it would be nice to see a bit more good news from time to time.

Returning to her first resolution, however, there is a glaring shortcoming in her advice and it shows up immediately in the excerpt above. It’s all well and good to claim that journos need to cover the campaign pledges and policy positions of candidates rather than simply where they stand in the polls. In fact, I would say that’s a vital responsibility of the free press. But Rampell neglects to explain how we should cover those positions. She immediately points to the work of Jay Rosen, who describes “the stakes” of election outcomes. As soon as you begin defining races by what the outcome will mean for the voters, that’s no longer “reporting.” It’s opinion journalism constituting a thinly disguised effort to influence the outcome. (That’s my job, thank you very much, so try to stay in your own lane.)

For example, let’s say a particular congressional candidate is in favor of either higher or lower taxes. A responsible journalist could run the numbers and tell people how much various people making different levels of income could expect to pay. They could even expand on that a bit and include some of the spending priorities that the candidate has supported so people could anticipate where their money will be going.

Unfortunately, people like Rampell and Rosen never stop there. If a conservative favors lowering taxes, they will bemoan the way that cuts will be made to various spending programs, typically focusing exclusively on how the changes will negatively impact “underserved,” politically favored demographics. Candidates seeking to raise taxes will be praised for making “the top 10%” finally pay “their fair share.” You no doubt already know the drill. That’s the sort of coverage you get when you start defining “the stakes.”

Wouldn’t it be more responsible to simply present both sides of the possible outcome and allow the voters to decide for themselves which one is the best choice for them? Back in the old days, that was considered responsible journalism, with reporters focusing on the who, what, where, and when details of a story. Sadly, you see precious little of that these days, and Rampell’s resolutions won’t do anything to address the matter.