Why Isn't Poverty a Story?

Why did John Edwards' crusade against poverty find so little resonance in the media?

It seemed a perfect time for his message. In 2006, 36.5 million people were in poverty, and 35.5 million Americans lived in "food insecure" households, 22.8 million adults and 12.6 million children. On any given night in America, anywhere from 700,000 to 2 million people are homeless, according the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.

Poverty in America is considerably higher today than it was in the 1970s and children are especially affected. The U.S. lags behind other developed countries in this area. While Denmark and Finland lead 26 participating OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries with child poverty rates below 3 percent, Mexico and the United States are at the other end of the spectrum, both with child poverty rates of more than 20 percent. (Maybe those folks who wade across the Rio Grande should just keep trekking North -- to Canada. )

Despite these facts, the press reaction to Edwards too often focused on what the Washington Post called the three H's -- Haircut, Hedge funds and House (his North Carolina estate.)

As Media Matters for America has reported, the media extensively scrutinized all of the above, "often baselessly suggesting that they conflict with his anti-poverty campaigning."

When Edwards announced a three-day, eight-state tour aimed at calling attention to poverty, the news media generally chuckled. The tour echoed Bobby Kennedy's poverty crusade in the 1960s, but the media seemed to regard Edwards' poverty tour as a gimmick. They also saw Edwards as just too pretty to be talking about poverty. Maybe he needed a face transplant from Johnny Cash to be taken seriously.

The news media has changed in many ways since Bobby Kennedy went on the road, and not for the better. Reporters used to be the people with their noses pressed to the window, looking in at the lives of the affluent. Today, they are often on the inside looking out. Big name journalists -- especially if they get on TV often -- command thousands of dollars in lecture fees. When I started out in journalism, reporters felt lucky if they could get three people to listen to them in a bar. They were more likely to follow the racing form than the stock market. Many of them actually lived in the down-at-the-heel neighborhoods that they covered.

Today, that's changed dramatically . A FAIR study found that in just over three years (9/11/03 - 10/30/06) the major TV networks, ABC, CBS and NBC, broadcast only 58 stories dealing with poverty in more than a passing mention.

It's a subject that has largely vanished from the media, deemed too depressing and unappealing to the affluent readers and viewers prized by advertisers. Where's the growth in journalism today? In infotainment and lifestyle journalism. If you're affluent and you want to know how to spend your money, just go to the nearest magazine rack or to your local newspaper. Coverage of food, fashion, furniture and high end housing eats up space. Late-breaking recipes trump stories about poverty.

Thomas Patterson, Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press at Harvard, found in a 2001 study that soft news has increased dramatically over the past two decades. News stories lacking public policy content jumped from less than 35% of all stories in 1980 to roughly 50% of stories appearing in 2001. Stories with a moderate to high level of sensationalism rose from about 25% of news stories in the early 1980s to a current tally of 40%. Stories that include a human interest element also figure heavily in contemporary reporting, accounting for less than 11% of news stories in the early 1980s, but more than 26% of reports by 2001.

It's no surprise that a "spiral of silence" has formed with regard to the coverage of poverty. Competitive pressures lead to fewer stories and the silence depends. Add to that the fact that few journalists today have personally experienced poverty, you find explanations for the often-mocking tone of the coverage of Edwards.

Even when John Edwards did well, he couldn't get a break. The Daily Kos notes that his coverage fell after he finished second in Iowa.

"There's no good reason for Edwards' coverage to fall the day AFTER the caucus. It should have gone UP not down; the news of Obama's victory had already been told, and Edwards' strong showing in Iowa should indicate a strong reservoir of support."

However, on the day of the caucus, Edwards received 41% of the mentions of either Edwards or Hillary; the day after the caucus, he received just 36%, despite narrowly edging Hillary out.

Given all the factors that influence the lack of coverage of poverty, this situation is going to worsen. The infrastructure of serious journalism is crumbling faster than our bridges and roads. So what to do?

One answer may be foundation funding, The Miami-based John S. and James L. Knight Foundation has launched a $25 million initiative to help newspapers cope with the new digital technology.

But as Dan Gillmor, director of the Center for Citizen Media Project (at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism) notes, "$25 million is a rounding error compared to what it will take nationwide (and, in fact, around the world) to come through this transition with a vibrant and diverse journalistic ecosystem..., foundations have the ability to support ideas that stem from motives other than big profits." One idea he suggests is that foundations pay the salary of an investigative journalist at a local newspaper.

They'd better hurry. Good journalism is collapsing just like that Minneapolis bridge, and that's sad news for the future of the republic.

Boston University Journalism professor Caryl Rivers is the author of "Selling Anxiety: How the News Media Scare Women."

Comments

[deanrader]

Though this story is a week old, I think it's important, and I try to answer the question Rivers poses. I’m fascinated to see to what degree Obama will step into Edwards’ poverty shoes. In fact, I write about Obama, Clinton, and poverty in my post today on The Weekly Rader:
http://weeklyrader.blogspot.com/2008/02/p-word-why-hillary-and-barack-wont-say.html

[DHFabian]

US poverty can be dramatically reduced by simply reversing former President Clinton's welfare "reform" policies. Clinton simply moved public funds out of humanitarian aid for America's poor, into tax "relief" for corporations that, in turn, promised to use this money to create an abundance of family supporting jobs. It failed 100%, and virtually all of the welfare dollars for corporations went into massive CEO bonuses and moving our jobs to foreign countries. Reverse the formula. Restore the aid and the programs that were, indeed, amazingly successful, enabling some 80% of welfare recipients to voluntarily quit welfare in under 5 years. These welfare policies were vital to building the powerful middle class after World War II. It is time to put the focus back on the common good rather than on the corporate bottom line.

[Mike5000]

Poverty is an important issue but John's campaign advisors let him down. You can't tackle poverty head-on because few Americans in their own minds are poor. They may be overstretched or in financial trouble and they may be unable to pay their bills but they're not poor.

The Edwards campaign should have focused instead on the risks that can cause middle class families to fall into poverty.

[socrates3]

Poverty can _never_ be the story. Because then poverty would be a _problem_.
And by definition poverty would _require_ (as voters would demand) a _solution_.
A solution that would demand an examination of the facts.
And those facts are obvious to the minority who _reads_ these blogs and between the lines in the major metropolitan dailies and the alternative press.
But those _facts_ and shocking statistics are not obvious to folks whose source of info is the electronic mainstream and other conventional info-tainment sources.
The function of the MSM is to provide _escape_ to those folks in the circle of poverty, those about to enter the circle of poverty or those who would be outraged if they found out they were candidates for the circle of poverty.
A solution in our republic is no longer achieved with bullets, but with ballots.
Every election is a revolution, but if voters remain unaware of the facts and our very real socio-economic problems, they will never vote for an authentic solution.
The last leader who tried was FDR, who justly taxed the major beneficiaries of our "free enterprise system" in an attempt to re-distribute the wealth to the needy via job creation.
"A traitor to his class" indeed...
Please, if poverty were the reported story, surely a candidate would be talking "New Deal 2" and unlike Edwards, Gravel and Kucinich--all who did--would win every Primary with a landslide.
It's a cover up.

[avicenna]

It seems pretty straight forward to me - American news is by large funded by corporations and they invest in viewers who are consumers. Those in a position to consume aren't - i.e. those with "buying power" - aren't the right demographic to be overly concerned with poverty as a story - and bringing it to light may take away the urge to spend on consumables - especially when they realize that they are the poor.

[brooklyncitizen]

Well nothing that is real news is a story. We just get news as entertainment with saucy language (pimping Chelsea) and half-baked facts on anything that would show this administration in a bad light.

THe only people that care about poverty are the poor and select religious groups like Catholics. I see the poor lining up at a nearby church evey wednesday for their food and clothing...and they look like regular folks.

Poverty is the most debilitating illness.

[Myrrhis]

I haven't seen any posters raise the issue of whether or not their is a floor to poverty.

Is there a level below which we would not let anyone slip? If so, what is it? Who administers the programs to maintain it? Are we providing it with the programs in place or what is missing?

Just curious . . .

[Myrrhis]

No one has responded . . . :(

[eddiestardust]

After finding out the entire Congress of The United States decided NOT to cover those who are unemployed says quite a lot.

All of them are PHONEY!

[swift goat pet for truth]

That kind of reality TV doesn't sell. Too much of a bummer.

And the poor don't vote.

[hopeless277]

Uh, because poor people can't hire lawyers.

[Bermudiana]

The media and consumers suffer from "compassion fatigue." Poverty, famines, poor education, etc. are problems that take more than a couple of weeks to fix... but people lose interest too quickly. There's a tendency to put a bandaid over a wound (ie donating a few thousand bags of food for a famine, take a picture, post it on CNN, and bounce) rather than going after the problem's source... ie lack of education, access to health, inequalities... systemic issues that can take generations to fix.

[Myrrhis]

I agree, Bermudiana, that systemic fixes can take a VERY long time to demonstrate measurable results, however . . .

There is a SET of issues here and a SET of approaches that can remediate them. Poverty is caused in large part by generational economics (yer family was poor, you are), lack of opportunit­y/educatio­n and shifts in the job market. What the government does NOT do is coordinate their approach to poverty to address all of these issues. A concerted effort would be much more likely to be successful in a shorter period of time.

As to other causes of poverty - choice, drug use - we can admit that they exist, but we _can_ make lasting changes for many people in poverty if we are willing to stop taking the easy way out and just tossing a dollar at it.

[Bermudiana]

agree completely.

[Incredulous]

The fight against poverty was Jesus Christ's life work. We know his fate, when he challenged authority.

[getalife80]

Blame Edwards. The guy is a super-phoney. $1200 haircuts, a $20,000,000 house, he was a hedge fund manager for crying out loud. And...think of karma, imagine what a truly horrible person he must be to have 2 of his loved ones stricken. We are not talking Ted Kennedy karma but it is not good.

[2zzday]

The demise of responsible journalism in this country began while John Edwards was still in college so blaming him for the current disgraceful state of affairs is ridiculous. Your numbers are just an example of the irresponsible way these trivial topics have been used against him. Why can we hold a man who was born into affluence and focused on poverty in such high esteem (Bobby Kennedy) and then dismiss someone who actually came from poverty and worked for everything he has as a phony? And your suggestion that the fate of his loved ones is somehow his fault is just cruel.

[tomdeerfield]

Edwards has a deep seated problem. Don't know what it is, only can guess....it comes through. Although the public can't put their finger on it, they are puzzled. You don't vote for anyone that puzzles you.

[standforpeace]

Your karma remark shows you to be pretty twisted and lacking in an understanding of the true meaning of the term itself. I guess you think that the children starving in Africa and those who drowned in New Orleans also were getting what they had coming?

[swift goat pet for truth]

Wow. You left me almost speechless with your ignorance and prejudice.

Hey, getalife... Get a life.

[Overd0g]

Why isn't it a story that nobody asks why each person is in poverty. How many are in poverty because of misfortune, and how many are in poverty because of poor choices. I'd like to see that breakdown. I'm sure lots of house flippers that were driving Ferraris a few years ago are now "in poverty", and I couldn't care less.

[Overd0g]

A just society will always have great extremes of wealth and poverty, and so will some flavors of unjust ones.