Resist the Extremes: Focus on Local Issues, Double Down on Democratic Threats

Originally published for the Election Coverage and Democracy Network

See the official post here: https://mediafordemocracy.org/ecad-blog-posts/

Here’s the text of the post below.

If a politician says something so outrageous that it belongs on an ironic t-shirt, bumper sticker, or hat, or quickly becomes a viral meme, is it news?

Generally, if a known national politician says something truly extreme, the answer most journalists would give is: of course! Covering the bizarre catch phrase of the day feeds into the Ripley’s believe it or not of our current political moment, where the public stands gawking at the spectacle before them.

With some exceptions– namely the presidential race – this approach does not help the public understand what is really on the line: the continuation of the peaceful transfer of power through free and fair elections. 

As journalists triage their efforts to focus their limited resources on the most important stories and issues of the day, what new lie or what new extremist position an already known extremist might say today isn’t news. Why? the statement is new, but the phenomenon is old hat. 

Chasing the daily Ripley’s has distracted journalists from another important function: providing coverage of all the other elections happening besides the presidential election, including those local elections that will most likely directly affect people’s lives.

In the few weeks left leading up to the election, journalists must resist  accidentally amplifying politicians whose antics take away public attention from the major issues on the ground. Journalists need to ask themselves: is this the kind of meme-worthy statement that really helps those people make up their minds? 

The known politicians have already broken through into public consciousness. Journalists can avoid adding more fuel to their fire. But elsewhere, there lurks an unknown politician who hasn’t received much media attention and who may not even be running for national office – and that politician is just hoping their antics will gain them attention on prime time TV.

Journalists need to be especially on guard to avoid amplifying local and state politicians to national prominence and to power in the public sphere that far outstrips their actual legislative power. 

I’ve seen this happen before in my own research: where an extremist politician pulls an antic that is bizarre enough or stunty enough to draw the attention of the national news media – and then leverage that moment of temporary fame into fueling a more robust political career. 

In my forthcoming book (with Jessica Hagman), Amplifying extremism: Small-town politicians, media storms, and American journalism (early draft here), we trace the rise of Republican state politician Darren Bailey, who at the time represented 384 people from a small town in Illinois. He leveraged a lawsuit against COVID restrictions into a state-wide political career and appearances on Fox News – reaching his height of fame after winning the Republican gubernatorial primary. 

We find that the structure of the news industry itself: the declines of local news, repetitive syndicated coverage, and national attention drawn by the novelty of a new controversy or political conflict mixes in problematic ways with our already hyper partisan political culture: to cover an extremist is to launch an extremist’s career. The tools of liberal democracy, and the compulsion of journalists to cover the news of the day 

The extremist playbook is old hat: think about Arizona anti-immigrant sheriff Joe Arpaio, “”America’s Toughest sheriff” who captured national attention in the early 2010s. We’ve seen this amplification of these extremists this week- most recently with Georgia election-denier, Julie Adams. 

What has changed is the media system – and that advantages extremists too – local news outlets have atrophied, meaning that there is simply less coverage of local politics (although assuming that local news outlets covered politics well is also problematic). 

Journalists simply reporting on the news of the day can actually serve as a springboard for public learning about extremist personalities: people’s first introduction to someone with anti-democratic positions may be through the mainstream news media, including local newspapers. And the extremist politician benefits from the added attention to their antics – whether it be latent mockery from the mainstream news media or adulation from partisan media. 

As attention to politics and news has become increasingly nationalized, and as there are fewer local journalists devoting attention to the many local elections,  the unknowns that do break through are likely to have a wild-enough story or personality to have captured national news media attention. 

For the estimated 26% of voters who remain undecided in the presidential election, there are likely many more who are unsure of their voting in state and local races. I am one of them, and I do research on media and politics for a living. 

All the noise is just not helping. In my home county of San Diego, there are 11 different local ballot measures alone on deck. Filling out my ballot seems like homework. But I will cop to being more distracted by the latest insanity that already known national figures are saying and putting off learning about the issues that actually matter to my everyday life (wastewater, rent, public schools).

In the last weeks leading up to the 2024 election, the news media is already spread too thin. Journalists can triage their efforts –  and avoid accidentally amplifying politicians in the public eye beyond the power they actually have to represent their constituents – and perhaps, help anyone who might be reading this find space in their heads to focus on the elections that matter closest to home.