Voters 'taken by the press' when it comes to news on presidential race
Part of Our World
Dan Rather

Okay, everyone who knows what Jeremiah Wright has to say about AIDS, 9/11 and Louis Farrakhan, raise your hand. Now let's see a show of hands from everyone who knows where Barack Obama - or any of the presidential candidates - stands on the structural challenges to the U.S. economy, foreign policy in the post-9/11 world and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Hello? Where'd everybody go? I'll start by giving the press its due: As a relative unknown on the national stage before his presidential run, examining the statements of Sen. Obama's associates can play a useful role in providing insights on the candidate's values, outlook and life. One of those associates, the former pastor of a church of which he and his family are still members, has some views that are deeply troubling to many Americans. After statements this pastor made surfaced online months ago, and after Obama denounced those remarks, the Rev. Wright has been on a highprofile publicity blitz, adding kerosene to a smoldering fire.

Wright's latest remarks, including his speech at the National Press Club, merited reporting. As did Obama's statements this past week about Wright's remarks. So, too, should political reporters note any effects the statements by either Wright or Obama have on Democratic primary voters and the electorate at large.

But some perspective, please. Can you imagine the same reportorial energy that has been brought to bear on the Rev. Wright being devoted, instead, to a policy speech by Obama - or Hillary Clinton, or John McCain? No, I didn't think you could. Because it's something you've probably seen precious little of in the past 25 years, if you've seen it at all.

One might reasonably ask why this is the case. Why is our national press, with a constitutional role to play in our great republic, covering the election as if a minister's words are more important than the words and deeds of our candidates?

We could look at the increased role religion has come to play in our public rhetoric and civic choices and decide that it's because of that. And that may, indeed, be a part of it, as

America prepares to vote on who will succeed one of the most outspokenly religious presidents in its history. But absent this historical trend, does anyone imagine that the Rev. Wright flap would have played out much differently.

Because if one wants to look at historical moments, then one can see that the moment we're in presents as persuasive an argument as one is likely to see for deep, substantive reporting and analysis on the presidential candidates and what they might do if elected.

We're fighting two wars, the economy stands on the brink of recession, gas and food prices are going up, our health-care system is in crisis, and nuclear proliferation and terrorism are on the rise while U.S. influence worldwide is on the wane. We face these challenges, as a nation and individuals, at a time when we are deep in debt.

And yet the column inches and broadcast minutes all seem to go to the sensational, the trivial and the all-but-irrelevant - one distracting non-story after another about all of the candidates for our highest office.

American voters are being taken by the press that is supposed to serve them. Taken for their advertising dollars, and taken by bottom-line pressures on newsrooms that leave insufficient time, resources and incentive for reporters to do much more than run with the herd on the stories that are easiest to cover.

Good thing we're living in an era of peace and prosperity, and substantive issues don't matter much.

Dan Rather, a Wharton native, was Managing Editor of the CBS Evening News for 24 years. His column appears by arrangement with King Features Syndicate.