USA Today founding member and White House/political correspondent Richard Benedetto has covered local, state and national politics for 35 years. In his new book, “Politicians Are People, Too,” Benedetto looks back on his career and argues that, contrary to public perception, not all politicians are corrupt cronies. The Examiner sat down with Benedetto to get his sense of the political landscape.
Q In your book, you talk about how “politicians are good people, too.” What, then, accounts for the low public perception of politicians?
A While some politicians bear responsibility to their own bad behavior, it is largely a product of media coverage that accentuates the negative and ignores or gives short shrift to the positive. There is an old adage that says, “Bad news sells.” I disagree. I think people like good news, too. When it comes to government and politics, we need a healthy balance that gives an accurate picture, not one that suggests that all politicians and politics are bad. They aren?t.
Q Do the wheels of government blunt the idealism and honesty of those who go into politics?
A To be sure, the wheels of democracy turn slowly. Moreover, this is a huge, diverse country with many interests and many viewpoints on issues. Coming to agreement can be difficult, if not painful. At the same time, a wide variety of special interests are pulling and tugging to get theirs. It all creates heavy pressure on a politician. The ideal is not to have everyone agree on everything. The ideal is to get things done, knowing full well that no one gets everything they want. Politicians should understand that going in. So should the media. And while there are pressures and temptations that test a politician?s honesty and integrity, there no excuses for falling prey to them.
Q What could politicians do collectively to improve their image with the American public?
A Do a good job, represent the people, do what they think is right, stick to their principles, cool the rhetoric and forget about trying to get into the news every day.
Q What could the media do ? or do better ? to provide the public with, what you see as, the goodness of most politicians?
A Without ignoring the bad things that politicians do, or abandoning our watchdog function on government, we need to report stories about politicians who do things right, as well as wrong. A politician should not have to die to be praised. If he or she is doing a good job, or performs a particularly good deed, the media should tell people. How else will they know? Today, a reporter who sees something positive and wants to report it runs the risk of being considered “soft,” or worse, in the politician?s pocket.
Q Was it always this way? In your 35 years of political reporting, how have you noticed the evolution of negativity against politicians?
A It was not always this way. It is a generational change. Many people who came into the news business after Vietnam and Watergate came in as reformers rather than reporters. They saw being in the media as a way to question authority, expose corruption, further a cause and tear down the mighty. You can more effectively do that when you first demonize the “enemy.” We have done a pretty good job of that.
Q Do you think that part of the anger against politicians partially stems from the fact that, so often, politicians seem angry at each other?
A Without a doubt, politics has become more angry and more partisan over the last three decades. Part of it is due to, again, different generations of politicians. Like some journalists who came into the business viewing the government as an enemy, some politicians came into the game viewing the opposing party as the enemy, rather than a group they must come together and agree with. To many, the debate alone is enough. Also, the rhetoric of the protest rather than the rhetoric of the compromise seems to have become the legal tender. And we in the media abet that by amplifying the hottest rhetoric emanating from the extremes, while ignoring the voices of reason and compromise. The result is a frustrated public that thinks nothing can get done.
Q Does the principle of “if it bleeds, it leads” apply to the coverage of politics, as well (meaning, the negative gets played higher than the positive stories)? Is this an intentional ? even mean-spirited ? editorial decision by journalists? Or are they merely feeding the public?s appetite?
A I am not sure that the public in general has an insatiable “appetite” for negative stories. Negatives certainly catch attention. And there is a certain fascination the public has for the bizarre and unusual. But we have to decide, first, if the blood is real or ketchup. It is a mistake on the part of media decision makers to assume that just because it bleeds it should lead. We need to present a good mix. If we did, people would not only feel better, they also would get a more accurate picture of the day?s news. Two worthy goals.
Q Why do the media have a responsibility to provide the positive stories? Isn?t that the role of press secretaries, etc.? Shouldn?t the media operate with a suspicious eye, to counter the spin they?re fed so often?
A Of course, we should not be accepting spin, and like stenographers, repeat it. And we should always be skeptical of what we are being told by officials, particularly when it comes to controversial or difficult issues. We are reporters. That means we go places other people don?t go and come back and tell them what we saw and heard. Hopefully, any “good news” story about politics or politicians has been as thoroughly reported and investigated as a negative one. The standards of journalism are the same for all stories. Or at least they should be. Reporters who are doing their job know the difference between spin and fact.
Q Out of the thousands of public figures you?ve encountered in your career, who was your favorite? Whose story did you find the most interesting?
A I have a lot of favorites. To single out one or two would not be fair. I talk about a lot of them in my book. Each is unique and each brings something special to the job. We as reporters need to find what the “special” is. Overall, I like politicians as a class. I would have been miserable for 35 years if I didn?t. How can you go out every day and cover people you don?t like? I couldn?t. In the acknowledgements in my book, I thank all of those politicians I have covered ? from mayors to presidents ? not only for their service, but also for the fond memories they provided. And I mean it.
Q What?s right with politics? And who practices it?
A There is a lot right with politics. Messy as it is, things do get done and problems do get solved, or at least alleviated, at the local, state and national levels. Most people benefit and the wheels of government grind on ? slowly and noisily at times ? but they do grind on. And somehow, we survive.
Q What?s right with the media? And who practices it?
A Much is right with the media. We have many good news outlets, good reporters and good editors in the business who do their best every day to give the American people an accurate and fair picture of the days? news. Of course, we fall down from time to time with our overemphasis of the bad news and the promotion of conflict. But what is right is that we are free and that we have the ability to criticize ourselves in hope of making it better.
Excerpts from ?Politicians are People, Too?
My grandfather, an Italian immigrant, taught me to have respect for politicians. One Saturday afternoon back in 1952, when I was 10 years old, I was returning home from the matinee at the neighborhood movie house, the Rialto, in our largely Italian-American neighborhood on the east side of Utica, N.Y. I stopped at my grandfather?s flower shop to excitedly report on the cowboy movies I saw. But before delivering my summary of the films, I had a burning question to ask. I was puzzled by the scattered booing that broke out in the movie audience when the newsreel flashed the image of President Harry Truman. At 10 years old, I knew nothing about politics. So I asked my grandfather why people booed President Truman. He stiffened, as if I had slapped him in the face, pulled himself to his full height and turned to face me. He jerked his right arm straight out and menacingly pointed his index finger toward my nose.
“You didn?t boo, did you?” he asked in a loud angry voice.
Shocked and a little frightened, I took one step back and timidly answered, “N-n-n-no.”
“Good!” he replied, still thrusting that finger toward me. “You don?t boo the president of the UnitedStates!” He said it slowly, emphasizing each word with a downward stroke of his arm.
I took him literally. You don?t boo the president of the United States. It?s against the rules. Period. But over time, I realized that what he was really saying was that as a citizen you should have respect for the office of the presidency, or any other high elective office, even if you don?t like the job the occupant is doing. More than 50 years ago, he was instructing me that there is a certain level of dignity and restraint you should use when being critical. Civility at all times. Anything less, he was telling me, was demeaning to our system. He was right.
