. w
-—1-Ao_- -—
A A . 4 A

THE STATE CAPITOL POUTKAL REPORTER: A STUDY :N
ATTEMPTS T0 INFLUENCE THE LEGSLATIVE PROCESS

Thesis {at film Degtee of M. A.‘
MICHIGAN STATE umvensm
Aibert Kaufman
191M

 

SHEEAS
J

 
  
   

LIBRARY

Michlgan State
Univermty

 

 

nammv.rn ‘
IA 11-4-EA‘IP-S T

in part-

DEpa

THE STATE CAPITOL POLITICAL REPORTER: A STUDY

IN ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

BY

Albert Kaufman

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Political Science

1964

v "‘ ‘fi
Ti; 3;
~Vfi‘-—I

A Qldu

This pap
political reg

legislative r;

I !

GEES-ended i:

t0 1:
Rafi C." s
T at“ been
a: .
L'Lnfil N.‘ ‘
“ 11' ° take
‘sniine‘

ABSTRACT

THE STKTE CafIToL POLITICAL REPORTER:
A STUDY IN nTT LITS To INFLUER E THE
EG SLATIVL PROCESS

by Albert Kaufman

Body of Abstract

This paper is a study of Michigan State Capitol
political reporters and how they attempt to influence the
legislative process of Michigan. It is descriptive in
nature, exploring how such reporters behave and why they
behave the way they do. It is their story culled from
Open—ended interviews based on structural questions and
the "collapsing categories" technique. However imprecise
and provisional, it supports the major hypothesis beyond
any reasonable doubt that the majority of these reporters
attempt to influence the legislative process in varying
degrees because they consider themselves part of it. The
findings take on added significance because when Michigan
findings are compared to those relating to Washington
political reporters and the national legislative process,
it is clearly evident that behavior is strikingly similar,
thus establishing a correlation pattern between government

and press on a state as well as national level.

It is t:
and thanks t
formal prese
list is too
is more than
It represent
education u;
Which was e:
my employer;
tinguished 1
faculty, 2;.
none as Inuc

ACKNONLEDGEEENTS

It is traditional for authors to give recognition
and thanks to those assisting with the development and
formal presentation of manuscripts. Regrettably, the
list is too long to acknowledge here because this thesis
is more than a formal application for a graduate degree.
It represents fulfillment of a goal for a university
education upon which the author embarked at age 40 and
which was encouraged by scores of friends, including
my employers, my former newSpaper colleagues and dis—
tinguished members of Michigan State University's
faculty. All are entitled to share in my happiness but
none as much as my dearest wife, Mamie, to whom I res—

pectfully dedicate this paper.

ii

.c“;d

I“ r' .71 g o a
53;.15V“ '

momma

an! F'l U
inn-3-43

I.

II.

III.

How
The

‘7.
ll
“ls

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRAC'P.0.000.000.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...00.... i
ACKNO‘NLEDGEr/IENTSOOCOOOO0......O..0OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOii

CHAPTER Page
I.

Examination of the Literature ............... 8
Statement Of the PrOblem 0.000000000000000010
Hypotheses and Definition of Terms .........12

II.
ResearChI‘IethOd01ogy o 00.00000000000000000014

III.

Role Perception ............................23
Objectivity .............................24
Criteria For Selecting Assignments ..........27
The Implications of Editorial Policy ........28
Influence by NeWSpapers .....................29
Influence by Reporters .....................30
How Reporters Perceived Their Colleagues

In Influence Roles .....................32
Legislators Attempt To Influence Reporters ..33
Reporters Impact On Legislator ............54
Access To Legislators .....................35
Reporters Oppose Separation From

Legislative Process ......................38
Rules of the Game .........................39
How Legislators View Reporters ...........41
Reporters' Political Persuasion As

Related To Favoritism .................42
Reporter Relationships With Legislators .....43
Can Reporters Maintain Detachment

From Legislators ......................45
The Relationship Between Reporter Tenure

And Tendency To Influence ...............47
Should Reporters Be Rotated ................48
Relationship Of Reporter Attitude To

Treatment Of Political News .............49
Reporters As Publicity Life—Line For

Legislators oooooooooooooooooooooooo000.050
The "Watch-Dog" Approach By Reporters .......51
Reporters Make News coo00000000000000.000000053
How Reporters Shape Legislative Behavior ....54
The Friendly Leak ........................56
Entertaining Legislators To Obtain Stories . 57
Miscellany ................................ 58

I

(D

rm *7! Hit—l

BIBLIC

APPEIV

TABLE OF CONTENTS -- Continued

CHAPTER Page

Final

IntrOdUCtionS O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 060
Findings 0 O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I .60
I'IethOlOgy O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0.. O .63

smary Statement O9.00.00.00.0000000000.066
BIBLIOGRAPHY OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0.0... 68

APPENDIX OOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOCCOOOO0.00.0.0.0... 72

CHAPTER 1

1... Some perceive political reporters as deadly
microbes, undermining the integrity of government. Others
view them as vital agents sustaining a complex political
system. How these organisms perceive themselves has long
interested scholars but only in recent years has there
been a systematic develOpment of substantive knowledge.1
Leo C. Roster made a major contribution in 1937.2 Political
scientists have published significant findings starting in
the '60's, but the most provocative treatment is seen
through Douglass Cater, a former Washington correspondent
and currently a member of President Lyndon Johnson's staff.
In 1959, Cater wrote a book describing the reporter's role
in Washington.3 It was Cater's thesis that the Washington
political reporter is not just the fellow standing on the

sidelines, jotting down what he saw and heard. Cater des-

cribed him as heavily involved in the business of America's

 

1The paucity of such research was pointed out in Walter
Lippman's Public Opinion (New York: MacMillan Company,
1949), p. 320.

L. C. Rosten, The Washington Correspondents (New York:
Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1937).

 

2

 

3Douglass Cater, The Fourth Branch of Government (Boston;
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1959).

 

government. He saw the reporter Operating in a system
where power is divided and where the reporter, as much

as anyone, but more than a great many, helped to shape

the course of government. Cater called the Washington
reporter an "indispensable broker and middleman" among

the subgovernment of Washington, choosing which event

to describe and which to ignore; illuminating policy and
giving it clarity; prematurely exposing policy and, not
infrequently, causing its destruction. Cater said that at
the reporter's worst, he could become an agent of disorder
and confusion; at best, he exerted a creative influence on
politics.

Cater's study motivated this writer in 1959 to explore
the state capitol reporter's role in Michigan government
because first, he was a member of that select body and
could examine himself while studying his colleagues; second-
ly, he was a political science student attempting to make
a contribution to the discipline. The inquiry was pursued
from the hypothesis that newspaper reporters covering the
state capitol in Michigan attempted to influence public
policy, particularly in the legislative process, because
they were directly involved in the process. Open-ended inter-
views were conducted with every member of the daily capitol

press corps and former state capitol reporters whose cumula-

tive experience exceeded fifty years. Legislators, state
employees and state executives were asked to comment. The
findings were submitted to the Michigan State University
Political Science Department, in 1959.4 They indicated

that every member of the press corps assigned to the state
capitol directly or indirectly attempted to shape public
policy. Like their Washington counterparts, Lansing report-
ers did not stand around recording processes of state
government. They admitted direct and indirect participation
in the decision—making process. The data indicated that
while techniques differed and results varied, depending
upon the reporter and his role perception, Lansing's
reporters attempted to shape public policy because they
considered themselves part of it.

It must be emphasized that such role perception was
not then, nor it it now considered imprOper. As one reporter
stated in 1959:5

"Influence is a natural function of newspapermen.

It was expected by my employer and I am convinced

it was expected by my readers. Of course, this

kind of influence was for better government, better

laws, and better officials. The mere fact reporters

sit in on legislative sessions constitutes influence
in my Opinion. Imagine, if you can, what would

 

4Albert Kaufman, "A Study in State Capitol Reporter Role
Perception" (Unpublished term paper, Michigan State
University, December, 1959).

51bid., p. 16 (interview schedule).

happen around here if sessions were closed to the
public and the press.

"Do not forget many legislators and state officials
want to be influenced. Many have not had previous
experience, and they don't know their way around.

Many would much rather be cued in on legislation

by newspapermen than lobbyists.

"After 30 years around these parts, I could write a

book on the subject, past and present, but don't let

anyone kid you as there is influence of all kinds
from the press. It will never disappear as long as

we are dealing with human beings."

This reaction was not surprising under prevailing
conditions. Lansing reporters had unlimited access to the
legislative decision-making process.6 They moved freely in
the House and Senate chambers, before, after, and during
legislative sessions. They conferred with lawmakers before
votes on important issues. When they considered that
legislators were playing to the galleries or speaking purely
for publicity reasons, reporters frequently left the
chambers while the legislator was speaking. Unfortunately,
the 1959 study lacked scientific structure. There was

emphasis on the dependent variable -- reporter activity in

the decision-making process. But only casual treatment

 

6This contrasts the Washington scene where newspapermen

have general run of the House lobby and press
association reporters are permitted on the floor
itself, although similar privileges are not granted
in the Senate. See the Thomas Stokes article, "Cover-
age Today," Dateline Washington, (Cabell Phillips, et
al., New York, Garden City, 1949).

 

was afforded such independent variables as reporter's
background, professional eXperience, techniques of in-
fluence, number of years assignment to the state capitol
beat and extent of physical access to the decision-makers.
However, the study provided data, previously unpublished.
It aroused interest among political scientists. It served
as a working model for this thesis. Hopefully, it will
stimulate more research because scientific knowledge is
limited in this area and the impact of communications in
our political process is vast. For example, two daily
newspapers have abandoned publication in Michigan since
the 1959 study. Students of political science and communi-
cation would benefit if it could be scientifically demon-
strated that the democratic process is strengthened or
weakened by the absence or presence of newspapers.

Since 1959: (l) the personnel of the Lansing press
corps has changed almost completely; (2) reporters'
movements in legislative chambers have been restricted;

(3) reporters must have identification cards; (4) reporters
must be officially accredited before gaining floor privileges;
(5) control of the executive branch has also changed for the
first time in 14 years.

We cannot know without disciplined investigation

whether these factors have had any impact on Lansing

reporters' attitudes, techniques and influence on decision—
makers. Crucial to tile incuiry is whether these changes
will affect the central hypothesis in the face of changing
relationships between Lansing reporters and political
decision-makers, i.e., new reporters and new legislators.

Harold D. Lasswell has said: "The study of politics
is the study of influence and the influential.“7 Thus,
to understand the political process we must look not only
at groups which attempt to exercise influence, but also at
the agent of the group and his behavior within the decision-
making process. In this study, neWSpqpers are treated as
a group and reporters as group agents.

DeVries said that the Michigan lobbyist possesses
power in the role he occupies, representing the organized
interest group, helping to formulate organization policies,
directing techniques and tactics for interpreting this
policy to decision-makers.8 The Lansing reporter can be

studied in the same context because the 1959 study showed

 

7Harold D. Lasswell, Politics: Who Gets What, When, How
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956), p. l.

 

8Walter DeVries, The Michigan Lobbyist: A Study In The

Bases and Perceptions of Effectiveness (PhD Disserta-
tion, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1960).

that he:

(1) perceived himself as representing the vast
unorganized interest group variously described as "the
public:" (2) perceived himself as the unofficial spokesman
for that group; (5) devised techniques for interpreting
an amorphous policy to decision-makers, hypothesizing
that as ears and eyes of this public, the reporter knows
what is best for it.

This is a study of the reporter's role perception in
the legislative and decision-making process. It attempts
to relate and determine the role effectiveness of Lansing
reporters. It is concerned with reporter role-taking in
the legislative process because the power and leadership
political reporters exercise is continuing and substantive.9
Just as in washington, Michigan reporters articulate those
governmental events which they and their editors deem worthy.
Reporters' strength stems from their ability to select --

to define what is news and what is not news. They have

 

9There is excellent treatment of this phenomenon by:
Alan Barth, ”The Press As Censor of Government,"
(Journalism Quarterly, Winter 1965); Joseph and
Stewart Alsop, The Reporter's Trade (New York, 1958);
Cabell Phillips, ”Autocrats of The Breakfast Table,"
(Dateline Washington, New York, Garden City, 1949);
Cf., Rosten, dashington Correspondents, p. 4.;
Donald L. Matthews, U.b. Senators And Their Worlds (New
York: Knopf—Random House, 1960), p. 206; Dan D. Nimmo,
Newsgathering in Washington (New York: Atherton Press,
196E), p. 5.

 

 

 

 

 

access to the decision-making process, executive as well
as legislative. At gubernatorial press conferences, they
may determine by questions which matters shall be brought
to the Governor's attention and in what way. They serve as
a general channel of communication between the legislature
and the Chief Executive, continuing to function when others
have broken off. They enjoy an intimacy with legislative
leaders few members of the Executive office ever share.

As each legislative issue reaches its crisis, one is made
sharply aware of the pervasive influence of news and news-
men. We need to know more about this interaction; its
weakness and strength; its psychological and philOSOphical

impact on the democratic process.
Examination of the Literature

This writer brings twenty—six years reportorial
experience to this study, including fifteen years as a
working member of the Lansing press corps. He has been a
role-taker and role-observer in the legislative and execu-
tive decision-making process. Like others, he has been
aware of his role in the power structure of state government.
Yet, beyond social discussions and casual intra-fraternity
conversation, he and his former colleagues seldom analyzed
their roles. It is an interesting phenomenon that while

political scientists have been fascinated with the role

\O

of political reporters in Michigan, interaction generally

has been brief, informal and without substantive results.

10

A notable exception was the DeVries lobbyist study which

brought the Michigan state capitol reporter into focus,
but only as a corollary phenomenon.

Cater's work was informative but not structured in

11

the scientific method. Matthews devoted a chapter to

12

"Senators and Reporters." Nimmo's work was more extensive

but dwelled principally on the inter-actions of Washington
newsmen and governmental public information officers.13
There are references in magazine articles, journalism
school text-books and quarterlies. Washington correSpondents
have written around the proposition in anecdotal books.
Source material is also available through public Opinion
literatures and autobiographies of former governmental

l4

officials and lobbyists. But few, including political

 

lOCf., DeVries, Michigan Lobbyists.

 

lle., Cater, The Fourth Branch of Government.

 

leCf., Matthews, U.S. Senators And Their Worlds.

 

15Cf., Nimmo, Newsgathering in Washington.
14

 

Sources are too lengthy to footnote, but generally
there is some reference to the subject matter in
every item listed in the articles, periodicals and
unpublished material of this papers' bibliography.

"\
_ \

1O

scientists, have come to grips with the subject in great
detail.

In Michigan, this paper is the first of its kind.

The absence of such material may be related to the
reporter's reluctance to discuss his role. Personal exper-
ience indicates that few are ready to discuss trade secrets.
Personal experience indicates, too, that few are ready to
discuss Openly the objectivity of newspapermen, especially
political reporters. They tend to believe that any penetrat-
ing inquiry relating to impartiality may weaken their image

with editors, news sources and readers.
Statement of the Problem

Since evidence is substantial that the political

reporter is in a position to influence public policy, it
is essential to know it in fact, he attempts to influence
public policy; how he is effective and why. Such knowledge
is crucial because while all political reporters are
private citizens working for private employers, they
assume quasi-official prerogative through occupational
status.

V This study will examine the Lansing reporter and his
job technique. It will examine the reporter's perception of
role in the legislative decision-making process; the relation-

ship between reporters and legislators as perceived by the

ll

correSpondents; the extent of influence exerted by reporters
for wire services and reporters for individual papers.
Another facet of this study will be the political reporter's
perception of his colleagues and the impact of this relation-
ship with legislqtors to the legislative process. Because
more knowledge is needed about "objectivity" in relation

to political news, this study will inquire into this
phenomenon and how it relates to Lansing reporters.

Based on findin s in the 1959 study and this writer's
personal experience as a Lansing political reporter, this
thesis hypothesizes that the Lansing reporter attempts to
play a role in the legislative decision-making process and
attempts to influence legislators; that such attempts
at influence are related to role perception, physical
access and personal relationships; that personal background
and experience are related to reporters' role perception and
interaction with legislators; that reporters "make news"

‘and thus tend to influence legislators; that reporters for
press.associations attempt to influence least of all. This
thesis also inquires into the relationship between tenure

and influence; i.e., whether the reporter attempts to influ-

ence legislators. Finally, discussion is invited on "objectivity"
in the news and whether it exists at all in the face of argu-

:ment that value judgments are always present in policitcal

reporting.

12

Hypotheses and Definition Of Terms:

 

1.

What is meant by "influence?".

a).

b).

c).

Overt personal activity in behalf of
or in Opposition to proposals under
legislative consideration.

Initiating policy prOposals through
legislative access.

Covert "lobbying" through 'editorializing'
in reporting legislative deliberations
and actions.

How can reporters exert influence?

a).

b).

d).

Unusual access to legislative, administra-
tive and political leadership.

Because reporters are popularly believed
to be "unsuspect" in this respect, they
can function at a different level and
through different channels than lobbyists
and self-appointed spokesmen for the
public or particular publics.

This "unsuspect" aura and generally
superficial noncommitment of reporters

to particular points of view or political
programs, permits reporters to act as

a feeder of intelligence to policy makers
from not only legislative, executive,
administrative and political leaders, but

. also government departments. As a two-way

street, reporters also feed intelligence
to departments.

As recognized agents of the peOples right—
to—know, reporters need not observe

rituals Of political and governmental
communication. They can demand —— although
it may not always be granted —- entry to
deliberations and discussions that would be
closed to many lobbyists and leaders.

The reporter in doing his job can attempt
to define the area of battle; seek to
delineate issues and alternatives in such

13

fashion as to limit areas of choice
Open to policy makers.

14

Chapter 11

Research Methodology

The research in this study was exploratory by nature.
The approach was along lines suggested by Selltiz1and
reiterated by Nimmo:2 "to gain familiarity with a phenomenon
or to achieve new insights into it, often in order to
formulate a more precise research problem or to develOp
hypotheses." Unquestionably, s0phistication is lacking and
conclusions reached previously and presently are subject to
retesting because the political process, as well as its
participants, is not static. However, a study of this
nature can develop statements of causal relationships and
generalizations which are significant to political scientists.
In effect, what appears in this study can be treated as a
snapshot rather than a studio portrait on the assumption
that the small lens result is better than no picture at
all. Because of its nature and the limited number of actors

involved, statistical accuracy and traditional tools of

 

1Claire Selltiz et al., Research Methods in Social Relations
(rev. ed.; New York: Holt, 1959), p. 50.

2Dan D. Nimmo, Newsgathering in Washington (New York:

Atherton Press, 1964), p. 237.

15

testing are not present in this work. In selecting news-
men, the following experience criteria was used. The indi-
vidual had to be a member of the Lansing press corps
(capitol beat) for at least two years. He had to be regular-
ly assigned. By this is meant that the reporter was based
in Lansing full—time, or covered legislative sessions
on a full-time basis. Radio and television reporters were
not included, although this area affords a golden research
Opportunity to the communication political scientist
student. Of interviews conducted with newsmen (N-15), the
breakdown included correspondents for the two major wire
services (Associated Press and United Press International)
as well as daily newspapers. It would have served this
investigator better, and perhaps added to the findings,
if respondents could have been categorized as "straight
reporters,""interpretive reporters," "columnists" and the
like. However, the sc0pe of the survey was too small
for such a breakdown. Second, the actors, themselves,
preferred to be treated as "reporters," not specialists.
Third, a breakdown would have tended to identify these
individuals, produced less candid answers and in all
probability imposed restrictions making this study worthless.
The data sought was basically attitudinal; the proced-
ure used was the personal interview. Interviews were

conducted in Detroit, Lansing, East Lansing and Howell

16

between March, 1964 and October, 1964. They were arranged
by letter and or telephone. All respondents were furnished
in advance with an extensive outline of the proposed work
and the role he was expected to play.

The mobile nature of the newsman's job created
considerable difficulty. In two instances, reporters had
been transferred from Michigan and interviews had to be
conducted by telephone and by mail. One person was omitted
from this study because of his assignment to the 1964
presidential election campaign and information that his
return was indefinite. With two exceptions, every in-
dividual co-Operated fully. Answers were candid and in
depth when requested. With those exceptions noted, none
hesitated to answer even those questions which admitted-
ly dealt with personal behavior and attitudes. It should
be pointed out that the so-called "exceptions? answered
all questions although their responses were sometimes
guarded and evasive. How the respondents would have
re-acted to an academic person, rather than a former
colleague, is conjectural, but it was evident that a
rapport existed and in several instances the respondents

volunteered that only a newspaperman could effectively

17

interpret their answers.3 The integrity of the Lansing press
corps is not at issue here because, essentially, they are
considered by the profession to be among the best in the
nation. They take their job seriously and their effective-
ness and ability as newspapermen has been demonstrated

time and again.

The clinical data was assembled through Open-ended
interviews based on structural questions and the "collaps-
ing categories" technique. It became evident early in this
study, that forced choice answers, i.e., "always," "fre-
quently," etc., were only clues and had to be measured
against detailed discussion. This presented problems
in evaluating the "frequent" or "occasional" answer but
considering the nature Of this work, the problems were
not considered insurmountable for persons trained for
this type of inquiry. The portable tape recorder technique
was considered and abandoned because it could create an
element of "mistrust," a judgment later confirmed in dis-

cussions with the respondents. Interviews were written by

 

3It WOU1d be presumptuous to imply that only former collea—
gues could have access. The fact is that Lansing
reporters have been generous in their co-Operation
with academic persons. However, the reporters' role
in the legislative process has largely been articulat-
ed through hearsay and not too infrequently, bias.
Reporters are generally concerned lest their employers
misinterpret free discussion of so-called "trade
secrets" and reportorial techniques.

18

hand. Pencil and paper were explosed gnly when considered
necessary. This technique may cause alarm but 26 years

of neWSpaper background provided skills in recording inter—
views based On the premise that most persons are more re—
laxed and more candid when not subjected to the psychologi-
cal pressure Of recording apparatus.

Interviews occupied from ninety minutes to three
hours, depending on the respondents' time availability.
They were conducted in offices, restaurants, private clubs
and in two instances, over a lengthy dinner meeting. As
noted earlier, reSpondents not infrequently objected to
forced choice Of answers.

For statistical purposes, respondents answered as directed
by the categories but it was obvious they preferred a
modified form of the non-directed interview.4 This
technique permits the reSpondeht to take advantage of
his personal cognitive structure of tOpics discussed and
his own interpretation Of the basic questions posed and
thus promote a relaxed point of view. as noted by Nimmo,
such free expression promotes a rambling type of interview

but develops data consistent with the SCOpe of inquiry, if

 

4Cf., Selltiz et al., Research Methods In Social Relations.

p. 267.

 

19

not statistical.5 Here, the skill and eXperience of the
interviewer comes into sharp focus, albeit "tests of signifi-
cance" are missing, however desirable. Yet, such an approach
is not without some virtue.

Nimmo encountered similar problems in his study and

comments extensively on "tests of significance."7

However,
he notes that their absence is no indication of despair

in exploratory studies and asserts that "although inferences
drawn from the survey data apply validly only to the samples
involved, such inferences in the form of hypotheses can‘

be extended to the broader universe of informational and
newsgathering activityleence, he points out, that despite
the lack of "tests of significance" to prove that patterns
of concensus and variation of attitudes uncovered are typi-

cal of all official news sources and newsmen or are the

"norms" of all explanatory and newsgathering behavior,

 

50f., Nimmo, Newsgathering in Washington, p. 246.

6Based on personal experience, reporters are quick to
detect flaws in structured questionnaires, and
consequently, they do not hesitate to "grab the ball"
from the interviewer and start interviewing him, if

permitted. J

7Cf., Nimmo, Newsgathering in WashingtonJ p. 247.

 

20

there exists a body of knowledge that has validity and
can be used as an effective tool in other exploratory
research. With this thesis, I agree.

Because the character of newsmen's activity in govern-
mental reporting has been defined as essentially political,
Nimmo constructed a classification pattern based upon the
consistent attitude patterns which emerged from his analysis
of the interview data.8 He develOped three categories:

(1) the recorder, whose discretion is limited to selection
of events for reporting and while accepting some interpret—
ation as a necessary part of the trade, never to the point
of injecting his own Opinions; (2) the expositor, who

has more discretion than the recorder in story selection
itself and who considers himself a specialist scanning

the political scene for stories that may serve the purpose
of giving depth to reader understanding. The expositor
feels no limitation on his role because he is aware that
personal judgment is involved and objectivity is virtually
impossible; (3) the prescriber, who chooses his own subjects
for comment and considers himself a competent commentator
on a broad range of problems and who in matters of objectiv—

ity is quite content to recognize its impossibility and

 

8Ibid., p. 49.

21

its undesirability.
Nimmo said that his classification closely resembles

impressions of others who have attempted to specify the

types of reporting in the political systems, notably

9

Frederic E. Merwin, and Richard Wilson,10 because such
reporting generally falls in the categories of press
association men, special correspondents and columnists.
This study confirms on a state level (Michigan) the
validity of categorizations developed by those analyzing
the Washington scene and thus it is apprOpriate to utilize
such classifications in the context of political communi-
cation. However, a cautionary note may be in order. Record-
ers, expositors and prescribers are well defined in the
Washington arena because their sponsors (employers) spend
more for such expertize. Conversely, economic implications

place limitations on state political coverage and thus,

Michigan reporters frequently assume the role of recorder-

 

9Frederic E. Merwin, "The Reporting of Government News,"
The Press And Society, ed. George L. Bird and
Frederic E. Merwin (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1951), pp. 214-219.

10Richard Wilson, "Reporting the Washington News,"

The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, CCXlX (1942), pp. 128—130.

{a

22

expositor-prescriber interchangeably. As a general
prOposition, however, press association reporters confine
themselves to the role of recorder in Michigan.

Most correspondents function as expositors. Bureau chiefs
act as expositor-prescriber. At least two correspondents
in the Michigan study could be termed prescriber, ex-

clusively.

23

Chapter 111

Role Perception

With one exception all respondents were college
graduates. Nine had majored in journalism; three were
English majors and two, political science majors. Two
were graduate students but only one received an advanced
degree, and the latter reporter, an English major, in—
dicated the least enthusiasm for political reporting.

On the average, respondents had spent 7.6 years in the
newspaper business before assignment to the state capitol
beat. On the average, they had spent 8.8 years as political
communicators, although one had been a Lansing reporter

for 25 years and another, for 30 years.

The majority said they had no pre-conceived notion of
the Lansing assignment. They tended to view it generally
as a "high honor," "fulfillment of a personal desire," and
dealing with a major field of interest. Two with previous
political reporting experience in other states looked
upon Lansing as another assignment.

However, when asked whether their pre—conceived notion
of the assignment had changed after two years on Lansing
beat, the out-of—staters were among the majority who
said "yes." One considered the subject matter more diverse;
the pace more excessive and offering more major stories.

The other noted different influences at work in Michigan

 

24

state government, i.e., labor and management. Generally,

the majority considered the work harder, more responsible

and requiring greater accuracy in the face Of stiffer
competition. One noted the Opportunity to exercise more
influence in public affairs. Another spoke of the "greater
challenge," "greater satisfaction" and need for thoroughness.
Two reporters (from the same publication, although inter-
viewed at different places and at different times) made these
comments:

a). "Yes, my views have changed. You soon realize
the glitter doesn't continue. News sources can
still lie, no matter how high they are. They
try to use you and your paper and make you
cynical. You form Opinions and they reflect in
your stories. They have to.

b). "Yes, you become more crassly political. You
realize that these men in high place Operate
on the pork barrel level. It's give me this
and I'll give you that."

Minority responses included "I'm not so awed by it
because men in government are like anyone else;" "not
knowing what to expect, the question cannot provide an
answer;" "what is the norm?"

Objectivity

It is axiomatic among reporters to approach their

assignment objectively and without bias. However, the

Lansing press corps were almost divided on whether Object—

ivity was possible, or even desirable. Generally, they

25

tended to agree with the great body of literature which
asserts in substance that complete objectivity is impossible
because objects, standards and past experiences always
interpose themselves; that man is the prisoner of the sum
total of his experiences;1 that value judgments are always

present.

 

1The concept of Objectivity has been examined in great

detail by academic as well as non-academic persons.

It is the heart of the fact-value controversy among
political scientists who have produced a vast store of
literature, including analyses by: Vernon VanDyke,
Political Science: A Philospphical Analysis (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1960), Part IV; APSR 57
(March, 1963, Op. cit.), p. 130.; Leo Strauss,

What Is Political PhilOSOphy? (Glencoe: Free Press,
1959), p. 24.; James W. Prothro, "The Nonsense Fight
Over Scientific Method: Plea for Peace, "Journal Of
Politics 18 (August, 1956), p. 566.; Max Weber, "The
Meaning of Ethical Neutrality in Sociology and
Economics, " Methodology Of Social Sciences, (Glencoe
Free Press).; Richard Rudner, "Value Judgments in the
‘Acceptance of Theories, in P.G. Frank (ed.) Thg
Validation Of Scientific Theories (New York: Science
Library, Collier Books), p. 28.; Walter Lippman,
Public Opinion (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company,
1937), p. 360.; Ken Macrorie, "Objectivity, Dead or
Alive," Journalism Quarterly, Spring 1959, p. 150.;
Edward R. Murrow, quoted in Charles Wertenbacher,

"The World On His Back," New Yorker, 29:29 (Dec. 26,
1955); Leo C. Rosten, The Washington Correspondents
(New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1937), p. 5.;
Elmer Davis, "Must We Mislead The Public, "The Press
In Perspective (Louisiana State University Press,
1963), p.58.; Doris Fleesson, "An Art To Be Practiced,"
The Press in Perspective, p. 145.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26

Among those Lansing reporters who write for daily
neWSpapers, these comments were typical:

a). You cannot live with these animals six months
of a year and treat your role in a strict object-
ive manner, because the longer you are around,
you know the liars and the truth-sayers.

b). Reporters strive most of the time for Objectivity F? 4

but true objectivity is a myth because reporters
generally are an intelligent lot. Anyone in that
job forms Opinions and prejudices, whether he
likes it or not.

 

c). New reporters are amenable to a "pat on the a;
back." You make friends because you need friends
and as a result, you tend to lose objectivity.
Also, the competition tends to push reporters
toward one politician or another; one party or
another; and thus, objectivity becomes a little
fractured.
One Lansing press association reporter Observed:

The vast majority of Lansing reporters are as
objective as possible within humane limits

but some reporters get hold Of a pet project

and act as informal lobbyists for that project
or bill. They write stories that might influence
passage or defeat of a bill.

In general, all Lansing correspondents agreed that
press association reporters were "most Objective" because,
unlike daily correspondents who could select and discard
certain news developments, press association reporters
reported virtually everything that happened. It was
demanded by the nature of their assignment and the mixture
Of their clients. For example, the Detroit correspondent

might ignore a legislative development involving the Upper

Peninsula Of Michigan, yet the story might have front

 

 

27

page news implications that wire service reporters could
not ignore, not without risking a complaint from the client
whose politics might be Republican or Democratic party
oriented.

There is a trend, as noted by Mader, from Objective
to interpretive reporting, particularly in the press
association and network reporting enterprises. This
phenomenon is explained partially by the awakening awareness
to go beyond what some public Official says is happening
and what is actually happening.2 As Nimmo points out,
such interpretation suggests a form Of policy-making which
can be defended by the newsman on the grounds that he is
representative of the public interest.3

Criteria For Selecting Assignments

 

Nimmo's concern assumes added significance in the
light Of discussions with Lansing reporters on their
criteria for selecting assignments. Essentially, the

majority Of reporters agreed their criteria involved

 

2Joseph H. Mader, "Government Press Bureaus and Reporting

of Public Affairs," Journalism Quarterly, XXXlll
(Summer, 1956), pp. 346-348.

 

3Dan D. Nimmo, Newsgathering in Washington (New York:

Atherton Press, 1964), p.—59.

 

28

value judgments and their establishment Of news priorit-
ies. Typical comments:
a). I try to go to tOp stories which I feel will

have an effect newswise on both politics and
the flow of government in Michigan.

b). Is it newsworthy? Is it something people will Q
want to know about and should know about? _

0). Does it interest me? Is it important to the
issue and will people want to read it?

Others spoke about "good readership potential" and

'l‘!

 

VHF

"headline possibilities." Among wire service reporters,
the approach was standardized:
You must cover specific areas, whether you
like it or not. Even if you wanted to slant,
you cannot get away with it because you are
dealing with 40 or 50 editors with different
views.
The Implications Of Editorial Policy
The majority of Lansing reporters said that editorial
policy not infrequently influenced their story selection.
Some spoke of "holy cows" -- a phrase reserved for pet
projects of editors which demand and receive special
attention from reporters, regardless of merit or one's
personal view. Others said they were inclined to give
more attention and detailed coverage to a story suggested

~ by their editor. One reporter stated:

If you know the editor's views well, you can
bathe in bylines and front-page play.

However, it is not suggested here that story selection,

29

motivated by editorial policy, is necessarily a negative.
The editor can often better assess a public issue and its
impact on the community than the reporter in Lansing. The
question was raised in interviews to test the "influence
factor' and the majority of reporters agreed that influence,

when necessary, can be stimulated by the home Office.

Some described it as a human frailty, others said

it was "good Business" to share the editor's view. Most
said they were "sensitive" to their offices, but not
necessarily guided by them. One reporter declared:

I found out early that anything about George

Romney got good play in the paper and so I

acted accordingly. Nobody told me. I just learned

it by watching the paper daily.

Influence by Newspapers

 

There has been considerable debate on the relationship
of newspapers to the legislative process and how much
influence a free press should exert in the democratic

decision-making arena.4 Among Lansing reporters there is

 

4The role of a free press in determining public Opinion has

not received prOper attention, according to Marcus M.
Wilkinson in his article, "History and Journalism
Research," Journalism Research (Louisiana State
University Press, 1949), p. 20. He deplores the lack

Of techniques in analyzing the role newspapers have
played in forming public Opinion and urges more attent-
ion to the influence exercised by editors and their
newspapers, not merely political influence but that
which tends to mold social and economic life of the
times.

 

 

30

no disagreement on the newspapers' role. They were
unanimous in their Opinion that neWSpapers have attempted
and should attempt to influence legislators regarding
public policy. They differed only in degree. A reporter
of many years experience declared:
That's their purpose. It can't be any other
way. The only question is whether the insistence
of an editor to get a legislator to vote a
certain way is detrimental to the entire state.
Sometimes editors get so involved, they cannot see
beyond the horizon Of their own circulation area
and what he attempts to do by journalistic
pressure is not necessarily good for the entire
state.

Another reporter said that many legislators do not
know how to vote and depend on the newspapers and edit--
orialists for guidance because they, the legislators, do
not have time to research the hundreds Of bills that pass
through a session.

In general, the reporters contended that the American
peOple depend on newspapers to express protests or approval
and by having access to information newspapers are Obli-

gated to speak for the public.

Influence By Rgporters

 

. Having discussed the role of newspapers in Michigan
and their relationship to the legislative-process, Lansing
reporters were asked whether they attempted to influence

legislators and if so, why and how.

31

The majority stated frankly that they attempted to
influence in varying degrees. The minority said "never."
Those who said they attempted to influence, explained
their behavior thusly:

a). My paper supported a particular issue and I
expressed those beliefs to my friends in the
legislature, and incidentally, it is important
to have important friends because you can cover
the entire legislature by talking to 10 people.

b). I and others on our paper talked to legislators
regarding certain issues in which we were
vitally interested because we felt it was in
the best interest of the public.

 

c). It was nothing more than conversation with certain
legislators. We provided them with information
that was in harmony with the party's point Of
view. There were no threats or promises -- just
conversation.

d). I wrote a particular story which I was almost
certain would be read by friends of mine in the
legislature, and after they read it, we could
discuss it. If you are around here long enough,
you build certain friendships.

Another reporter said he went to friends in the
legislature and pointed out implications of pending
legislation which they said they were not aware of. Other
reporters spoke of the "casual remark," "spotlighting
an issue in the news column and explaining them later in
conversations with legislators." Another reporter said that
a certain bill had been introduced at "my urging" and was
adOpted, after failing once, "because of a continuous

program of our paper working with the finance committees

32

of the House and Senate." This reporter described his
influence and that of his paper as "constructive influence"
because it involved a particular community project. All
who admitted to influence attempts saw no harm in their
activity. Without exception, they said they believed that
what they were doing was in the public interest because it
reflected no private gain for themselves or their paper.5
How Reporters Perceived Their Colleagues In Influence Roles
While a minority of Lansing reporters said they had not
attempted to influence legislators, all reporters but one
who declined to answer perceived their colleagues as
attempting to influence. Whether the majority was pin-
pointing one, two, five, ten or all capitol correspondents
could not be ascertained because no names were mentioned
and names were not solicited. These responses were given
on the subject:

a). Some reporters have attempted to influence on
specific pieces of legislators.

b). I have seen reporters prOpose amendments to
legislators and Openly volunteer Opinions.

0). I have seen indications which lead me to believe
some reporters at some times and on certain
issues did attempt to influence legislators.

d). Not too much Of it going on but I am aware that
reporters have to keep their shirts clean by
not lobbying unless you lobby for the majority
party.

 

5How political reporters influence the decision—making
process has already been footnoted in the works of
Rosten, Cater, Matthews, the AlSOp Brothers, Nimmo,
etc 310

e).

f).

s).

h).

33

I find some newspapermen who take a personal
interest in certain legislation, Often they
involve pet projects.

Most reporters spotlight their influence in
their columns or conversation but a few are

more deeply involved.

I have known reporters who because of a personal
dislike for certain peOple and for certain
legislation take a personal hand in seeing that
things went their way.

You just have to be around and Observe what goes
on to know that the least attempt to influence
is from the freshman reporter who doesn't know
how to influence.

Legislators Attempt To Influence Rgporters

Attempts to influence are not a one-way street. The

majority of respondents agreed that legislators attempt to

influence reporters and by techniques variously described

as the "friendly leak" and "button—holing" process. As

one reporter put it: somebody is always working on

somebody, over drinks at bars, passing remarks, floor

debates and through the "hand-out" technique (issuing pre-

pared statements). Legislators were represented as suggest-

ing stories, volunteering viewpoints which they hOped to

see in print, and trying to be friendly with reporters.

Generally, reporters agreed that the legislative process is

like a market—place where someone is always buying or

selling political viewpoints, and not infrequently, the sales

target is the reporter.

 

34

Repgrters Impact On Legislator

There is no evidence that the reporter is influenced
by the legislator but is the legislator influenced by
the reporter? The majority of respondents thought reporters

had some impact. Only one said "never."6
It was the press corps concensus that if they did

influence legislators proof was lacking in most instances.

Reporters generally agreed that legislators are conscious

 

of the press and the reporter's power and that all public
officials desired a "good public image". However, the
reporters recognized that in most instances, they are

used as sounding—boards by legislators who try to determine
reaction toward certain legislation before it is introduced.
Reporters also recognized that legislators' "influence
attempts" were directly related to their constituency

7 Thus, legislators dependent

and home-town newspapers.
on Saginaw press coverage were more concerned with Saginaw
reporters than Detroit reporters. In this context, the
Saginaw area legislator might also be more subject to
influence by the Saginaw reporter than the Detroit news-

paperman whose circulation has no impact upon Saginaw

readers. However, there is evidence of influence by

 

6Matthews' treatment of this phenomenon in his "Senators
and Reporters" chapter is all inclusive.

71bid, p. 200.

reporters. One reporter recalled a cartoon showing
"auislings" following a certain legislator depicted as

a Pied Piper. Immediately after publication Of the cartoon --
and distribution around legislative chambers -— the alleged
"Quislings" changed their positions on a roll call vote.

Access To Legislators

 

Michigan legislative reporters enjoy a physical
proximity to the legislative process that is unique. The
1959 study noted that correSpondents had almost "free run"
in the executive office and halls Of the House and Senate.
They had almost unrestrained freedom on the floor before,
and after, and during legislative sessions. They could
and did confer with lawmakers just before votes were
taken on important matters. They could and did manifest
personal opinions, before and after a vote, by facial
expressions or vocal outburst. There were implications and
unofficial complaints to the Speaker Of the House and
the President of the Senate that certain reporters had lobbied
for private interests. There were implications that such
lobbying was for private gain and within confines of the
legislative chqmbers. The alleged practice will not be
-examined here because while this knowledge is empirical to
this writer and veteran members of the Lansing press corps;
there is no Official record of the complaints. However in

1957, capitol correspondents were requested by legislative

 

 

36

Officials to sign pledges that they would not "lobby"

if granted access to legislative chambers. The request
created a furor in the press corps. Some reporters signed.
Others would not. In effect, the request did not become
official and there is no evidence the incident was record— $3
ea in legislative journals.8

However, by the beginning of the 1963 legislative

 

session, House and Senate officials were issuing Official if
press cards recommended by a special screening committee

of the capitol press corps in the House and Senate, and

acted upon by the chairman of the Business Committee

in the Senate and the Secretary of the Senate Committee

on correSpondents in the House. Such cards were signed by

the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the House

Committee on CorreSpondents.

On February 7, 1963, Allison Green, Speaker of the
Michigan House of Representatives, sent a special memorandum
to recipients of press cards which stated:

The Speaker of the House and the Chairman of
the House Press Committee urge all news reporters,
expecially those who may not have past experience
in the Capitol, to observe the basic customs

and rules of decorum which are in addition to
the standing rules of the House.

 

8Unfortunately, there is no written record of this

situation but it is undisputed among veteran Lansing
reporters and of first-hand knowledge to this writer
while a member of the Lansing press corps.

37

Please do not use the center aisle. Do not

walk in front Of the Speaker's rostrum or

between Members addressing each other or the

body of the House; or otherwise create a distract-
ion while the House is in session.

If a number of correspondents feel it necessary
to hold an 'informal press conference' with a
member while the House is in session, it is
suggested that it be held Off the floor of the
House.

Please be considerate of each other. Time and
limitations of present press room space make
the job of thorough and accurate newsgathering
difficult enough as it is.

Be advised that admission to the floor of the
House is provided for representatives of the
press in the standing rules of the House, not
by the State Constitution. Disregard for rules
and respected customs by a few could mean great
inconvenience for all.

Be advised that any person admitted to the
floor under the House rules who lobbies or is a
lobbyist forfeits his right to enter the House
at any time.

The House Press Committee also reminds new

recipients of press cards that because of severe-

ly limited facilities, issuance of credentials

at this time does not carry with it any righ§

to unassigned seats, facilities or services.

Conversations with veteran correspondents disclosed

that legislators unofficially urged House leaders to bar
reporters from the floor during sessions. At one point, it

Was suggested that desks assigned to reporters on the floor

 

9The letter has been framed and now hangs in the House
Press Room at the State Capitol, Lansing, Michigan.

 

38

of the House be moved to a balcony area. Support came from
several legislators who contended that certain reporters
were acting "beyond" their reportorial function and

that with a space shortage in chambers the move would be
apprOpriate. Here again, the plan was abandoned after
vigorous protest from the press corps. The Green memo

was issued subsequently.

Reporters were asked whether their physical proximity
to legislators was related to a tendency to influence and
the majority agreed that it was. They said that friendships
were inevitable in the confining atmosphere of a session
and "influence possibilities could not be eliminated."

One replied: the closer you are, the more they are aware of
your influence. Another said that certain legislators
watched reporters' reactions at the press tables, and

if reporters seemed bored or were not taking notes, the
legislators shortened debates.

One reporter who said "no," explained:

It depends upon what reporters are involved
and where the legislators are from. Some out—
state legislators could not care less about
Detroit reporters and some of the Old pros
have reached the point where they know yesterday's
paper is for wrapping fish.

Reporters Qpppse Separation From Legislative Process

While respondents agreed their proximity was related

to influence possibilities, they were unanimously Opposed

 

39

to separation from the House and Senate,10 These were

typical comments:

a).

b).

c).

d).

e).

I don't see why putting "the peOple of Michigan"
in the balcony serves any purpose. If anything,
it keeps them farther from an accurate picture.

Physical access is a way to double-check on what
has happened. It protects the accuracy of
statements heard and prevents misunderstanding.

Legislators act more circumspect by seeing
reporters around. The nearness tends to
indicate that 'big brother is looking over your
shoulder.'

The good of having ready access outweighs the bad.

Why change? Lobbyists sit in the gallery and
that doesn't reduce their effectiveness or
materially change their relationship with
legislators.

Rules Of The Game

One hypothesis Of this study was that reporters

proximity to the legislative process developed friendships

and a "club atmosphere" which followed certain unwritten

rules of the game, i.e., reporting some things and not

others. In this context, the reporters were asked whether

they felt it was imprOper to report "some things about

 

10

Based on personal experience, such Opposition is under-

standable from the reporter point of view. However,
the Stokes article, "Covera e Today," Dateline:
Washington (New York: 1949, p. 267, points out

that while reporters generally have run of the

House lobby, no newspaperman can go either into the
United States Senate lobby or the floor Of the Senate
during sessions.

4O

legislators." The majority said "yes." They agreed that
value judgments were involved but essentially they viewed
legislators' private lives to be free from public scrutiny
unless public duty was effected. There were variations
in the definition of "public duty," but it generally
related to those concepts outside of drinking, affairs
with secretaries, and moral views.11 One reporter said:
They are elected as legislators, not Saints.
Some have girl—friends, some drink too much,
others drive too fast. -
Another said:
I'm not interested about legislators showing
up drunk, or with whom he sleeps, or where
he goes to church. I am interested in what
he does, and how he votes on issues effecting the
public.

Other“comments:

a). If something he does intrudes on his public
role, I report it. Otherwise, no.

b). Some personal things are not public business
The legislator is human. He has a right to
personal privacy. If he gets to be a public
spectacle, it is different.

 

11Whatever the reason, reporters tend to be liberal in their

moral views, hence a reluctance to write about "affairs"
and excessive drinking except if it results in arrest.
Some call it "back-scratching." Others allude to it as
"unwritten rules of the game." Matthews ties the knot
to the basic reason in his "Senators and Reporters"
chapter with the Observation that the reporter, like
the legislator, needs friends to do an effective job,
U.S. Senators And Their Worlds, p. 214. Rosten makes
the point that "it is foolish to sacrifice a first-
rate news source for a third-rate story," Washington
Correspondents, p. 110.

 

 

41

Press association reporters said they shared generally
the views of their colleagues on daily neWSpapers. However,
the press reporters said they were obligated to report
"all the news," if it became part of the public record,
"including the drunks and drunk drivers." Only one
reporter said_he did not feel bound by any club loyalty.

He declared:
As public figures, legislators deserve public
scrutiny, and frankly, they need a good kick

in the pants sometimes to keep them straight.

How Legislators View Reporters

 

The majority of respondents agreed that while
legislators tend to regard capitol reporters as part of
the legislative process, reporters are viewed with suspicion
and not infrequently as "political Opponents." It was the
consensus that new legislators are less restrained in their
relations with reporters than so—called Old—timers but
restraint exists, nevertheless. Reporters gave these
responses:

a). It is largely a matter of personality. Some
legislators are impressed by us. Others are not
sure whether we can or will harm them. At first
all are cautious. Then they relax-~but never
completely.

b). It depends on the legislator. Some are "clubby"
while some take pains to avoid you. Usually
those who are the least effective and the least

capable are the ones who avoid reporters.

c). It depends upon the position of leadership.

Reporters'

 

42

Most leaders are quite candid about what's going
on. Some seek you out for publicity. Others make
themselves available. It is important to remember,
however, that the House and Senate are run by

not more than 15 men. If you know them, and

enjoy their confidence, you know what is going

on in the legislature.

Political Persuasion As Related To Favoritism

Most reporters admitted definite political persuasions

but the majority said such feelings did not enter into their

relationships with legislators or handling of the news.

One, however, pointed out that certain reporters tend

to gravitate to those legislators who share similar

political views.12 Another declared:

Let's be honest about this. Personal feelings
are bound to enter to a degree because anything
that offends your own view Of how society
should be run, would call for action and such
action is generally tied to one political party
or another.

Other comments:

a).

b).

Your whole political philOSOphy governs the
way you feel about certain issues, whether you
admit it or not. You try your best to balance
judgments but many times, it is only a try.

After you are here for a while, you realize
your reason for existence in this jungle is the
responsibility to the people for accurate
reporting. You may dislike an individual legis-
lator and you may even dislike his political
party, but you cannot beat out his brains with-
out eventually working against yourself.

 

2Joseph W. Alsop, Jr., Reporting Politics (New York: Reynal
& Company) looks at the problem diffErently. He says
political reporters are not eunuchs and nobody wants to
be one. In his Opinion, such reporters have feelings
and they tend to give vent to them.

43

0). Only a few reporters are involved in deliberate
favoritism and as a consequence, these reporters
drive others to compensate by setting the record
straight.

d). Such favoritism has been going on for a long time
because those reporters were oriented to a party
before they arrived or became so after a short time a
on the beat. 1

e). I have seen capitol reporters who personally
appeared to favor one political party. This was
in personal conversation and in their personal
views.

 

f). Favoritism exists. It has changed as the press
corps has changed. Generally, it is tied to
personalities.

1:1.

g). An accidental bias is built into everybody.
You can pick out the Democratic and Republican
reporters. Some tend to be liberal or conservative,
based on background and it doesn't take long for
truth to emerge.
Reporter Relationships With Legislators
All reporters said they had closed relationships with
some legislators than otherso The respondents split almost
evenly on whether this relationship made "some difference"
or "no difference" in their treatment of those legislators.
Those who said it made "some difference" brought out that
"intentionally or not, you try to avoid 'knifing friends'
whenever possible";"a 'favorite adjective' might slip
into a story here or there." It was generally agreed
reporters were inclined to give a friendly legislator

recognition and say something nice about him. The element

of "protectiveness" and tending to give a friend a "little

 

44

extra break" was also introduced.13 One reporter said
"it's awfully hard to hurt a friend!" Another reporter
warned:
You can't keep up the personal or social
relationship on a close basis without eventually
being influenced by a twisted vision in regard
to the man and his legislation, good or bad.

Those who said their personal relationship made
"no difference" did not always support the statement in
the discussion period. While they agreed that a reporter
cannot let personal feelings enter into something, all
but two said that they might have slipped on rare occasions.
However, if and when they did, the latter said the slip
was not intentional; nor did it affect the general approach
to their story.

Throughout the interviews one fact was unassailable.
Reporters are drawn into the legislative process by choice,
interaction or proximity. Sooner or later, legislators
come to them for advice and on this point all reporters
agreed. Only one said he never gave advice because he
did not think such advice carried any weight° However, the
majority felt their advice did have an impact although it
could not always be proven. Most felt they were being used
as "trial balloons." Others said they were suspect Of

flatterers, although some legislators who asked on advice

were sincere. These responses were typical:

b).

c).

45

Sometimes questions are asked to bring you

into the conversation; to make you feel needed
and important but you may find that the decisions
made were on a set of completely different fact-
ors. '

Many times, legislators from small areas are
trying to learn of opinions in others areas.
These legislators feel that reporters get
around and sample Opinions and thus have more
knowledge on the subject.

In the Michigan context, the decisions of
legislators are seldom free from direction Of
the policies of their parties, their caucus,
their district interest and pre-election
commitments. Who knows whether your advice has
any impact?

Can Reporters Maintain Detachment From Legislators

Asked whether reporters can maintain a completely

detached view in their relations with legislators, the

majority said "no." Since their comments go to the heart

of this thesis, the responses are treated in greater

detail.

a).

You can't be detached because your part of the
legislative process. When a reporter has been
here long enough, he should become involved in
the process. Sometimes, you go overboard,
become Opinionated on "right" or "wrong" and
you start choosing the good guys from the bad
guys. But the point is that unless you have a
definite interest in politics, it is no point
being here and thus you find yourself in the
system and trying to change it. In short, you
become involved in personalities.

You are thrown together with lobbyists,
legislators and administrators to the point
where you become part of the Operation. You can't
be an island and live alone. You are subject to
the same general pressures as the others with
whom you work and at close range, too.

'46

c). A reporter has certain feelings on major issues
and I would be less than honest to say that
those feelings do not permit a reporter to be
completely detached in his view.

d). If you know something about a subject, you have
an Opinion. Prejudices are always at work. So
are attitudes and feelings and you eventually
find yourself rooting for or against something
when the tally is being taken on a bill.

e). The longer you are here, the more you know or
are supposed to know, and therefore, you cannot
detach yourself. It is almost impossible, just
as it is almost impossible to be objective.

f). Reporters are like other humans. They are
influenced by those with whom they come in
contact. If I see one legislator more than
another, that influence is prOportional. I find
that I almost have to guard against downgrading
a legislator because of his personality, manner—
isms and attitudes.

g). Any reporter, however Objective, is still a
product of his makeup and personality. To a
varying degree, some reporters try to maintain
a "hands—off" policy, others try to get legislat-
ors to do his bidding.

h). You can detach yourself on some issues and with
some men. But there are too many issues and tOO
many men where detachment is impossible.

Those who said complete detachment was possible said

it related to objectivity and thus you could not allow

yourself to become involved.14

 

14

The AlSOp brothers support the majority view asserting
that reporting Offers the sense of being engaged in
the political process of one's own time and the report-
er who is not consciously engaged is in fact likely to
be a very bad and unsuccessful reporter. Reporters
Trade (New York: 1958), p. 8.

 

47

The Relationship Between Reporter Tenure And Tendency To

Influence

 

Asked whether the longer a reporter stays on the cap-

itol beat the greater the tendency to attempt to influence

public policy, the majority replied in the affirmative.

Here, too, detailed comment is crucial to the major hypo-

thesis of this paper, and the comment is as follows:

a).

b).

d).

f).

I have seen it happen and it was my reason for
insisting on no indefinite assignment in
Lansing. There is a limit to how long you can
live in a "closed society" without being
captured by it.

.This is particularly true if a reporter gets

to be a prima donna type who is frequently
sought out for advice, and we have them in
Lansing.

Yes, You get kind of wooly-headed and feeling that
you have seen this show so many times with new
fellows going through the same tricks and making
the same mistakes. It is impossible after 15 years
on this heat to detach yourself from an issue or

a politician.

The longer you have been here, the greater

the Opportunity, if not the tendency, to
influence because you have more experience, more
tenure. You know more peOple and you know them
well. You know their prejudices and you can
accommodate your approach to them in those terms.

Some capitol reporters tend to take the prOpriet-
ary view of state government while others are
able to maintain a good Objective relationship.

Grooves of action run deep. You see freshmen in
the legislature and you feel they deserve your
guidance, however some reporters try to change
the world the day they arrive and they never stop.

a).

h).

48

You consider yourself a professional and it is

'less than human to expect that sense of expertize

to disappear. It becomes inbred in the individual.
You try to swing votes. New reporters realize
they cannot win much influence.

It depends on the employer in some cases and

‘ whether the reporter is expected to do a hatchet

’job. Some reporters change the longer they are
on the beat; others do not.

Only one reporter balked at the question. He said it

implied a tendency among reporters to influence and in

his Opinion, a reporter is one who reports.

Should Reporters Be Rotated

The question of rotating reporters was raised and

four said they should be; four said it varied with the

individual while five were against the principle Of rotation.

Those favoring rotation said:

a).

b).

c).

You shouldn't be here more than 15 years. Things
move too fast and you tend to become an echo-
horn. Then there is the physical side. Your legs

give out and you can't move as fast as the politi-
cians and the issues.

If you are not moved completely out of Lansing
then you should rotate between chambers. For

one thing, the longer you stay in the same place,
the more you tend to identify with the chamber

and the legislator, and risk becoming protective.
The veteran reporter becomes weary and doesn't ex-
ert the same enthusiasm.

Five years in Lansing, in my Opinion, was about
one year to long.

Those Opposed to rotation said:

a).

Generally, the longer a man is stationed at
the capitol, the more background and more valid

 

49

judgment he has. It takes months and years to
get your feet on the ground.

b). Effectiveness increased with background and
knowledge of the situation. To rotate when he
is just beginning to know his way around——
and that takes considerable time-- is to minimize
the paper's investment in a political reporter.

c). It can't be done because it takes too long
to break in a new man.

d). Generally, it is not good business to switch
manpower unless the reporter has become too
involved with individual legislators or parties.

Relationship Of Reporter Attitude To Treatment Of Political
aegis.

Reporters' attitudes, stemming from personal background
and experiences are related to their treatment of political
news, the majority of Lansing reporters concluded.15 Present
in their answers were such comments as "every man is a
political animal;" "some backgroung has to rub Off subject-
ively in every story he writes;" "attitudes and responses
are tempered unconsciously by background and what the
individual has learned and not learned." A reporter of

more than 10 years Lansing experience said that "all gets

into the story, whether you see it or not." Wire service

 

15The most precise statement on this point is in Lippman's
Public Opinion. p. 360, wherein he states that "the
more the reporter understands his own weaknesses, the
more ready he is to admit that where there is no
Objective test, his Opinion is in some vital measure
constructed out of his own stereotypes, according to
his own code; and by the urgency of his own interest."

 

SO

reporters said they had to be "on guard" against such
influence because their clients were alert to "reporting
that was not straight-away." One reporter who said he was
not influenced by his personal back-ground gave this answer:
To the degree that any human being can, a
trained reporter can eliminate personal judgments,
but it takes training and the admission that there
may be two sides to every story. However, it
must be remembered always that things are not
all black or white.
Another reporter declared:
Let's face it. If you come from a poor, deprived
family you will be interested in social pro-
grams and if your parents were staunch
Republicans as mine were, you don't change
overnight. The fact is we are all captives
of our past experience. All you can do is
recognize your prejudices and try to control
them.
Reporters As Publicity Life-Line For Legislators
Interviews disclosed that Lansing reporters perceive
themselves as the life-line of publicity for legislators,
and these reporters are convinced they not only can influence
the legislative process by the publicity technique but
do although proof is lacking. The reporters contend the
legislator is constantly aware of the communication media

and the need to maintain good relationships with the press,

particularly if there is only one daily newSpaper in his

51

home town.16 As one Lansing reporter viewed the problem
and in general, it was a composite of majority reactions:
Give them a story and front-page publicity
and the legislator pushes it. He is constantly
striving for a good image back home because he
wants to get re-elected or move to higher office.
In the case of Detroit and Wayne county legislators,
competition for mention is so keen, they will
do almost anything to get their names in the
paper, particularly around election time.
Another reporter recalled how a Detroit legislator
brought a bear into the State Senate Chambers and insisted
on putting the "animal" on the rostrum. Some thought it
was a live bear while the Senator insisted later it
'was a "bear wearing a man's costume." This Senator had a
reputation for develOping "gimmicks" to obtain publicity
because, in his Opinion, it was the only "sure way" to
get his name in the paper. There is no scientific proof of
the success of his methodology but, in fact, he was re-
elected more times than any other legislator in Wayne
county.
The"Watch-Dog" Approach By Rgporters

Because publicity is a power-tool for reporters, and

related to their Opportunity to influence the legislative

 

16There is a high degree of concensus among authors on

this point. Pertinent observations are contained in s
works by: Lester W. Milbrath The Washington Lobbyists
(Chicago: Rand-McNally, 19635, p. 7. Rosten, Washington
Correspondents, p. 79.; Matthews, U.S. Senators And
Their World, p. 214.; Nimmo, Newsgathering_in Washington,
p. 33. .

 

 

 

 

 

52

process, they were asked whether they assume a prOprietory

or"watch-dog" attitude in relations with legislators.

Except in degrees, all respondents replied affirmatively.17

Typical answers:

a).

b).

c).

d).

One

Reporters regard themselves as protectors Of

the public welfare. Their job is something more
than a paycheck. It has to provide a certain
personal satisfaction and such satisfaction is
derived when you put the knife into something you
know is not in the best public interest.

The watch-dog attitude is and should be predomin-
ant. That is the function Of the press. Unless
we take a hand, who is going to do it?

As the eyes and ears of a vast public, a reporter
has this "watch-dog" responsibility. That is
why he is getting a paycheck.

You have to watch legislators. They are news.

If they are from areas where your papers circulate,
this is their only contact with peOple. Therefore,
you will watch them from the moment they are

sworn in. The voters want to know all there

is to know about their elected officials and

if the reporter is not prepared to meet this
obligation then he better get out of the business.

reporter said that legislators expect.to be watched

 

l7AlSOp calls the political reporter a "most necessary
party Of the political process" -- in effect, he
is the peOple's eyes and ears with the task of making
the peOple's government the peOple's business; the
instrument that creates an informed public Opinion.
The Reporters Trade, p. 10.

53

by the press. Some, he added, do not make a move without
checking with reporters who write for the legislator's
constituency. Another reporter recalled:

This watch—dog attitude pays off. I recall a
certain bill which was written to give business
to a single company. Other reporters were aware
of this, tOO. They were also aware that this
company was wining and dining certain legis—
lators. When the stories hit the papers,
legislative attitudes changed—- in a hurry.

Reporters Make News

 

Reporters not only record newsworthy items in the
legislative process, they also make news, the majority Of
Lansing reporters agreed. Techniques vary, but they include

deveIOping ideas for stories, and investigations and using

friendly legislators to give the story an Official flavor.18

Those who support the concept Of "making news" asserted:

a). The technique is good as long as it is not
misdirected. It is another way of doing your job-—
bringing out facts that legislators may not have
or helping them to get these facts because
legislators have more power than reporters.

 

18Evidence on this point is abundant in the body of

communication literature. Rosten says that political
reporters have "launched congressional investigations
and wrecked political machinations; "Washingpon
Correspondents, p. 3.; Phillips' contends that—
"governmental programs have been materially altered
to win the approval or avoid the ire of various
Washington columnists;" "Autocrats of the Breakfast
Table. "Dateline Washington, p. 181. In Lansing,
reporters have been known to provoke legislative
investigations because of personality clashes with
governmental officials.

 

 

 

 

54

b). Newspapers have crusades. Some are interested
in highways, others in mental health, grand-
juries, schools or welfare rolls. There is nothing
wrong in throwing more light on these subjects
if it is in the public interest.

A minority of reporters frowned on this technique;

sample views:
a). If you cover the beat properly, you don't have
to make news. It is dishonest to color a story.
It is unfair tO the readers.
To Often, some reporters are always looking
for headlines. If they think they can make a
story, they will give it a boost, even though
the facts do not support it. The sad part is
that some reporters have personal axes to grind
in state government, and if they can't find a
way to get at certain people in agencies, they
attempt the legislative investigation technique.
It has happened all too frequently in my time around
here to be mere co-incidence.
How Reporters Shape Legislative Behavior
It has been suggested that reporters shape legislative
behavior because: (a) reporters define "news" and thereby
influence legislators in determining the issues; (b)
reporters motivate legislators into taking action because
of the way reporters write a story; (0) reporters serve as
an essential link between lawmakers and the outside world
and as a means of communications within the legislative
‘process. With all three hypotheses, the majority Of Lan-

sing reporters agreed, asserting generally that in the

nature of things and their relationships with the legis-

55

19

lative process, it could hardly be otherwise. These were

typical responses:

a). Obviously reporters define news because they
pick and choose from among the general run of
news. The legislator who does not watch the
papers to see what is getting the most space--
and interest-- is not much interested in the entire
legislative process. As for communication
within the legislative process, reporters serv-
ed almost in the role of courier during the 1959
tax fight between Democrats and Ruplicans,
trying to get the matter resolved.

b). Reporters dig into certain situations because
they regard themselves as experts and when they-
think they have the facts, they pressure legis-
lators to take certain actions.

0). When a legislator sees a story in pring, he is
more likely tO take an interest in the issue. If
the story is getting a big play, the legislator
knows he will get comment and mail and he knows,
too, that if he plays his cards right, he will
get publicity.

 

19According to Lester W. Milbrath The Washington Lobbyists
(Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1963), p.7., Washington
reporters are circulating gossip—mongers whocdo much
to link various parts Of the government into a
functioning political system, and so essential that
if not present, they would have to be invented to
make the system work; Curtis D. MacDowell, Interpretive
Reporting (New York: MacMillan), p. 349., describes
political reporters as a potent linkage force;
Matthews, U.S. Senators And Their Worlds, p. 204
asserts that—Senators behave in accordance with report-
ers' expectations. The Dateline: Washington collection
Of articles covers the point from many angles.

 

 

 

 

 

56

While agreeing that reporters define "news," the
minority disagreed that they "pressure" legislators into
taking action, based on play of a story, asserting that
editors, not reporters, determined play (location of story
in paper, length Of story and the headline).

One reporter suggested the questions were "badly
phrased" and he declined to answer on the basis that
legislative behavior was shaped by legislators, not
reporters, except in isolated instances.

The Friendly Leak

 

While relationships between legislators and capitol
reporters vary, all reporters agreed that legislators employ
the "friendly leak" technique in dealings with select
reporters.2O They ascribed this practice to "friendship,"

"a desire tO get one's name in the paper," "curry favor with
the most influential paper or reporter," "to get even with
other reporters who may have treated them badly," "embarass
colleagues or certain administrators," "trial balloon

technique." Personal relationship or a desire to get the

most play" were the most frequently mentioned reasons. One

 

20The "friendly leak" has been described and discussed by
virtually every writer on the subject Of reporter-

politician relationship.

 

57

reporter suggested that (1) some legislators feel the public
should know what's going on; (2) many legislators trust
reporters and think they should know what is going on in

the legislative process.

Entertaining Legislators TO Obtain Stories

Asked whether entertaining legislators was productive

21

of stories. Lansing reporters split almost evenly on the

question. Those who favored the practice said:

a). In the long run, you will get the good stories
that way. To do a prOper job, you must "live" with
a legislator and not just be a bystanding Observer.
Almost all Of the best stories I got in Lansing
came through continuing efforts to cultivate the
confidence of certain legislators, and you can't
cultivate such confidence within the state
capitol building.

b). Many legislators don't recognize news. But if you
are sitting around a saloon, they will mention
things that ultimately make news.

0). Socializing is productive Of news on a tip basis.
In a relaxed atmosphere, a fellow is more willing
to talk and discuss. In a formal interview, he
is more reserved.

Those Opposed said:

a). You never get news through entertainment. You
get it through friendship and respect.

b). There are lobbyists to do the entertaining and

 

21Washington reporters play the social role heavily, see

Rosten, Washington Correspondents, p. 105.; Matthews,
U.S. Senators And Their Worlds, p. 210.; Allen Drury,
A Senate Journal, 1943—1945 (New York: McGraw Hill,
19637. p. 195.

 

 

58

they usually pick up the tab. Most newsmen
don't feel the need to ply legislators with
food and drink to get stories. If they do, they
should be in some other business.

c). Speaking generally, the reporter who works

hard and uses his head will do better than the
man who spends money.

In retrospect, the question could have been improved
by introducing such variables as the paper's attitude
toward such expenditures; the reporter's attitude toward
socializing and availability, of time and personal funds.
Miscellany

The interviews closed with a general discussion Of
three tOpics: (a) whether the respondents wanted to
spend their entire professional carrer reporting politics;
(b) the impact of legislative reporting in relation to
the number of papers represented in Lansing; (0) what
personal characteristics made Lansing reporters most eff-
ective in covering the legislative process.

In relation to a life—time of political coverage,
Lansing reporters preferred such an assignment by a two—to-
one majority. Those who preferred it called it "challenging,"

"exciting," "fascinating," "satisfying." Individual quotes:

a). It's a ball because peOple are funny and interest-
ing. It's like watching a football game.

b). It's like holding a glob Of mercury in your hands,
or watching the Fords go by. It's fun when you
pull the rug from under the phoneys.

59

c). It is dealing with people who have the most .
important impact on our lives.

d). When you dig into something, make it intelligible
and then communicate with others, you can feel
like you have done a good day's work for yourself
and your fellow citizen.

 

Those who envisioned another assignment said:

a). After so many years in Lansing, there is a tend-
ency to get stale, live in the past, forget
todays problems and those of the future.

 

b). Enough is sometimes enough. a;
a.
c). A man needs and wants a broader perspective.

d). Some reporters get anesthesized; others get
ruttisized.

In general, Lansing reporters believed that the public
'was amply represented in newspaper coverage Of the legis-
lative process. They agreed, however, that the more papers
present, the greater the competition and the professional
standards. They were concerned about the disappearance Of
daily newspapers in Michigan and the subsequent danger of
a one party press.

What makes a Lansing reporter effective?

The list is long but it generally covered these
characteristics: Energy, enterprise, integrity, knowledge,
-background, Objectivity, personality, judgment, having a
‘big newspaper, liking peOple, organization and definition
<)f job concept, articulation, talent as a writer, the

£1bility to separate the wheat from the chaff, attitude, v:

(devotion to duty.

60

Final Chapter

Summary

Introductions

 

 

This work has been a study of State Capitol reporters

in Michigan. Essentially, it explored the "how" and "why" g

Of their behavior in relation to the Michigan legislative ii?!“
process. Underlying this study was the major hypothesis E
that the Lansing reporter attempts to influence the legis- ,J

 

lative decision-making process. E;

It was the burden of this study to demonstrate that
such attempts at influence are related to role perception,
physical access and personal relationships; that reporters
"make news" and thus influence legislators; that reporters
for daily newSpapers attempt to influence legislators more
than reporters for press associations.

This study pursued a correlation between tenure and
influence; i.e., whether the longer a reporter remains on
the State Capitol assignment in Michigan, the more he
attempts to influence the legislative process. Also
investigated was the concept of "Objectivity" in the news.

Findings

 

Based on interviews with reporters regularly assigned
to the State Capitol Press Corps in Michigan, indicated that
in the Opinion Of the majority:

1. Complete Objectivity in the news is non—existnet.

61

2. Reporters are guided by editorial policy in
covering and writing political stories.

3. Newspapers should and do attempt to influence
legislators regarding public polity.

4. Attempts to influence public policy are a two—way
street, used by reporters upon legislators and vice-versa.

5. Press association reporters attempt to influence
the legislative process less than reporters for daily
newspapers.

6. Physical proximity Of reporters to the legislative
process tend to influence legislators, yet reporters are
Opposed to a lessening of that proximity.

7. There are some things reporters feel it is improper
to report about legislators, i.e., personal behavior, inside
and outside legislative chambers.

8. Reporters maintain closer relationships with
some legislators more than others and such interaction is
related to their treatment Of the news affecting those
legislators.

9. Legislators ask reporters for advice on public
matters and such advice tends to have an impact on legis—
lative decisions.

10. Reporters cannot maintain a completely detached
view in relations with legislators and consequently, the

longer a reporter stays on the capitol beat the greater

62

10. (continued) the tendency to attempt to influence
public policy.

11. Reporter attitudes stemming from personal background
and experience are related to treatment of political news
and political parties.

12. Reporters assume a proprietory or "watch—dog" att-
itude in relations with legislators.

13. Reporters make news, i.e., develop ideas for stories,
investigations and use friendly legislators to give stories
an Official flavor.

l4. Reporters tend to shape legislative behavior by
defining news and determining issues; motivate legislators
into taking action because of the way stories are played in
newspapers; serve as an essential link between lawmakers
and the outside world and as a means of communication with-
in the legislative process.

15. Reporters are viewed with suspicion by legislators.

16. Rotation Of reporters may be desirable to avoid
favoritism and bias.

17. Legislators leak stories to select reporters.

 

65
Methodology

The research in this study was exploratory in nature
and, in effect, an experience survey. Because of the limit—
ed number Of actors involved, statistical accuracy and
traditional tools Of statistical testing are not present.

In selecting newsmen, an experience criteria was developed, ??
based on a minimum number of years and full-time assign— f'fl

ment to the State Capitol Press Corps. This criteria was

 

established to preclude those who cover legislative sessions 1«*
on infrequent occasions, including radio and television 5;
newsmen. Data sought was basically attitudinal. Procedurely,

the study employed the personal interview. Interviews were

conducted in various parts of the state as an accommodation

rather than investigative technique because Of the mobile

nature Of the respondents. Interviews were arranged by

letter and or telephone. Before the interview, all res—

pondents were furnished with an extensive outline Of the

proposed work and the role the individual was expected to

play. With two exceptions, all respondents co-Operated

fully. Answers were candid and in depth when requested.

Interviews lasted from 90 minutes to three hours, depending

upon the availability of the respondents' time. They were

conducted in Offices, restaurants, private clubs and over

lengthy dinner meetings. In two instances, the mails and

telephones were used becsuse reSpondents had been trans-

ferred to other states. NO recording apparatus was used,

64

in the writer's belief that this technique would create a
psychological barrier. In retrospect, this judgment was
justified as evidenced by casual remarks during the inter-
views.

Questions were structural and Open-ended. For statis—
tical purposes, respondents were asked to choose an answer
from a category but while co—Operative, they frequently
objected to such methodology. Answers were given as
directed by categories but it was Obvious the respondents
preferred a modified form of the nondirected interview (Sell-
itz, Research Methods in Social Relations). This technique
permits the respondent to take advantage of his personal
cognitive structure Of topics discussed and his own inter-
pretation Of the basic questions posed and thus promote
a relaxed point Of view. As noted by Nimmo, such free
eXpression promotes a rambling type of interview but
develOps data consistent with the SCOpe of the inquiry, if
not statistical. In this study, forced choice answers and
the Sellitz approach were closely correlated.

The literature in this field of inquiry is limited and
has been almost exclusively developed by working newspaper-
men Or former reporters. Whether more political scientists
have accidentally overlooked this area Of research or
whether such inquiry presents unusual problems to the

non-reporter investigator is an interesting phenomenon.

65

However, it is important to relate that the Lansing
respondents sometimes hesitated to answer vital questions,
fearful their answers would be mis-interpreted, particularly

by a non—newspaperman.

 

 

66

Summary Statement

The study Of political reporters covering the Michigan
State Capitol was large-—perhaps tOO large in the context
Of scientific investigation—- because each bit of evidence
invited new exploration and new analysis. What was design-
ed to measure relationships between Michigan political
reporters and the Michigan legislative process soon begged
for comparison between Washington political reporters
and the national legislative process. As Michigan findings
were over—layed on the Washington scene, it became evident
that behavior was generally similar. Thus a correlation
pattern was established between government and press on
a state as well as national pattern. However, it would be
foolhardy to suggest without further investigation that
reporters in all other state capitol bureaus behave the
same as Michigan reporters and all political reporters
behave the same, whether state or nationally based. The
evidence is conducive to further research by political
scientists as well as communication specialists because
the role of the press in relation to government has not yet
been clearly defined.

If one purpose Of political knowledge is to dispel
myths regarding political behavior, then it is incumbent
upon academic investigators to develop the growing body of
knowledge that tends to support the hypothesis that the

press and government are intertwined in our democratic

 

67

process and that the press must therefore share responsibil-

ity for government's success or failure. Need for such

inquiry becomes crucial with the growing impact of

television reporting in state and national affairs--

a phenomenon virtually ignored in scientific study. r}
Students may shirk from the magnitude Of the ”J

problem because it may take years of intensive and systematic

 

work to answer questions in a reasonably scientific fashion, f
and thus satisfy those political theorists who favor con- L3
formity and authority. But as Van Dyke and Matthews pointed

out, Obstacles to making all descriptive studies scientific

are very great and in the meantime, imprecise and provisional

findings are better than none.

 

68

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Albig, William, Modern Public Opinion (New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1956).

 

AlSOp, Joseph, and Stewart AlSOp, The Reporter's Trade
(New York: Reynal & Company, 1958).

 

Brecht, Arnold, Political Theory: The Foundation Of
Twentieth Century Political Thought (Princeton:
Princeton University, Press, 1959), p. 5.

 

Cabell, Phillips, et. a., Dateline:Washington (Garden
City, N.Y., 1949).

 

Casey, Ralph D., The Press in Perspective (Louisiana
' State University Press, 1963)}

 

Cater, Douglass, The Fourth Branch of Government (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1959).

 

Easton, David, The Political System: An Inquiry Into The
State of Political Science (New York: Alfred A. KnOpf,

1953).

Krock, Arthur, The Gathering of the News (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1945).

 

 

Lerner, Daniel, The Passing Of Traditional Society (Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press, 1958).

 

Lippman, Walter, Public Opinion (New York: Harcourt, Brace
& Company, 1922).

 

MacDougall, Curtis D., Inteppretive Reporting (New York:
The MacMillan Company, 1963).

 

Matthews, Donald R., U.S. Senators And Their World (North
Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1960).

 

IMerwin, Frederic E., Reporting of Government News, (New
York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951).

 

iMilbrath, Lester W., The Washington Lobbyists (Chicago:
Rand McNally, 1963).

 

 

 

69

Nagel, Ernest, The Structure Of Science: Problems in
the Logic of Scientific Explanation (New York:
Harcourt, Brace, 1961) p. V11.

Nimmo, Dan D., Newsgathering in Washington (New York:
Atherton Press, 1964).

 

Rosten, Leo C., The Washington Correspondents (New York: _
Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1937). F}

Selltiz, Claire, et a1, Research Methods in Social Relations
(rev. ed.). (New York: Henry Holt & Company, Inc.,

 

 

1959).
Strauss, What Is Political PhilOSOphy? (Glencoe: Free _r3e
Press, 1959). J

Truman, David B., The Governmental Process (New York:
Alfred A. KnOpf, 1958).

Van Dyke, Vernon, Political Science: A PhilOSOphical
Analysis (Stanford: Standford University Press, 1960)
Part 1V.

 

Wahlke, John C., and Heinz Eulau (eds.), Legislative
Behavior: A Reader in Theory and Research (Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press, 1959).

Articles

 

Cabell Phillips, "Autocrats of the Breakfast Table,"
Dateline:Washington (Garden City, New York, 1949)
p. 172.

Davis, Elmer, "Must We Mislead The Public, The Press in
Perspective, (Louisiana State University Press, 1963.,

P. 58.

Fleeson, Doris, "An Art TO Be Practiced", The Press in
Perspective, (Louisiana State University Press, 1963),
p. 145.

IKnebel, Fletcher, "The Placid Twenties," Dateline: Washing-
ton (Garden City, N.Y., 1949), p. 69.

liraft, Joe, "Washington's Most Powerful Reporter," Exquire,
NOV. 1958, p0 450

70

Nafziger, Ralph 0., "Journalism Research," (Louisiana State
University Press, 1949, p.4.

Reston, James B., "The Press and World Affairs," The Press
in Perspective, (Louisiana State University Press,
1963). p. 30.

Stokes, Thomas L., "Coverage Today," Dateline:Washington
(Garden City, N.Y., 1949), p. 267.

 

Timmons, Bascom N., "This Is How It Used TO Be," Dateline:
Washington (Garden City, N.Y., 1949), P. 59.

 

Tucker, Ray., "Part—Time Statesman," Collier's, Oct. 28,
1955, p. 58.

Wertenbacher, Charles, "The World On His Back," New
Yorker, 29:29, Dec. 26, 1955.

 

White, William S., "Trying TO Find The Shape," Harper's
Magazine, Aug. 1958, p. 62.

Periodicals

 

Breed, Warren, "Analyzing News: Some Questions for Research,"
Journalism Quarterly, XXXXlll (Fall, 1956), 467-477.

Carter, Roy E., Jr., "Newspaper 'Gatekeepers' and the
Sources of News, " The Public Opinion Quarterly,
XXll (Summer, 1958), 133—144.

Gieber, Walter, and Walter Johnson, "The City Hall 'Beat':
a Study Of Reporter and Source Roles," Journalism
Quarterly, XXXVlll (Summer, 1961), 289-297.

Hachten, William A., "The Press As Censor of Government,"
Journalism Quarterly, XXXX (Winter, 1963), 12-18.

Macrorie, Ken, "Objectivity, Dead or Alive," Journalism
Quarterly, XXXVl (Spring, 1959), 145-150.

Mader, Joseph H., "Government Press Bureaus and Reporting
Of Public Affairs," Journalism Quarterly, XlX (June,
1942), 172-178.

Marbut, Frederick B., "Congress and the Standing Committee
of Correspondents," Journalism Quarterly, XXXVlll
(Winter, 1961), 52-58.

71

Wilson, Richard, "Reporting the Washington News," The Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, CCXlX (January, 1942), 127-131.

Unpublished Material

 

De Vries, Walter, "The Michigan Lobbyist: A Study In The
Bases and Perceptions of Effectiveness", Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960.

Kaufman, Albert, "A Study in State Capitol Reporter Role
Perception," Unpublished Term Paper, Michigan State
University, 1959.

 

72

Append ix I

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE -- LANSING CAPITOL CORRESPONDENTS

 

 

 

 

Interview Number Name

Date

Hour

Place Length of Interview

 

 

Preliminary Statement to Respondent:

 

I am doing a study of Lansing state capitol reporters to learn about
their jobs, how they perform their work, their backgrounds and relationships
with decision-makers in the legislative process. NO names will be used of
individuals or organizations, nor will the information be used except for
academic purposes.

I am not interested in any expose, nor am I seeking to embarrass any
individual reporter or his employer. This type of study was done in 1959 by
Douglass Cater in relation to Washington correspondents. I am attempting to
replicate the work on a state level, realizing as a former Lansing correspondent
that many problems inherent in political reporting are difficult to explain and
‘ that contributions Of Lansing political reporters to the democratic process are
often denigrated, rather than praised.

All information will be confidential. The original materials will be

seen only by me.

 

1.

10.

What year were you born?

 

Regarding your education

 

(a) College Incomplete ............ (
Graduate .............. (
Degree ................ .(

(b) Graduate work Incomplete ............. (
Graduate .............. (
Degrees ............... (

(c) Major field of interest in college

(d) Major field of interest in Graduate School

How many years did you spend in the newspaper business before assignment

to the Lansing state capitol beat?

 

Did you have any preconceived notion of the assignment? Explain.

Is it different that you anticipated? Explain.

How do you now perceive your role as a Lansing reporter?

Are Lansing reporters "objective" in their treatment of legislative news?
Objectivity is defined here as presenting the news onthe basis of what

somebody tells you and letting it go at that.

Please explain your answer.

Always....... ........ (
Frequently ............ (
Occasionally ...... . . . . . (
Rarely . ............... (
Never ................ (

If you select assignment, what are your criteria?

If you know, what are the criteria for selection by you editor?

In covering and writing political stories, are you guided by editorial policy

0f your neWSpaper?

Please explain your answer.

Always ................ (
Frequently ............. (
Occasionally ........... .(
Rarely ................ (
Never ................. I

vvvvv

 

11.

12.

13.

14.

If you work for a wire service, are you guided by your client's editorial
policy in covering and writing political stories?

Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............ ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................. ( )
Never ................. ( )
Explain.

Do you believe newspapers attempt to influence legislators regarding

public policy?
Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................. ( )
Never ................. ( )
DK/NA ................ ( )

Comment invited .

Do you believe neWSpapers should attempt to influence legislators regarding
public policy?

Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................. ( )
Never ................. ( )

Explain.

Have you attempted to influence public policy through your relations with
legislators?

(a) Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................. ( )
Never ................. ( )
(b) If your answer was "always" or ”occasionally? was this action
in support of your newspaper's belief, your own belief or for
other reasons?
Newspaper's belief ...... ( )
Own belief ............. .( )
Other reason ........... ( )
Combination of both ..... ( )

JnII'Il-I'

 

 

(c) If influence was attempted, what was the technique?

15. Have other reporters attempted to influence public policy through
their relations with legislators?

Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................. ( )
Never ................. ( )
DK/NA ................ ( >

Please explain your answer.

16. Have legislators attempted to influence reporters regarding public policy?

Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................. ( )
Never ................. ( )
DK .................... ( )
Please explain your answer.
17. Do you think legislators are influenced by reporters?
Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................. ( )
Never ................. ( )
DK/NA. ................ ( )

Please explain your answer.

18. Does your physical proximity to the legislative process tend to influence

legislators?
Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................ ( )
Never ................. ( )
DK .................... ( )

Please explain your answer.

19. Should reporters be physically apart from the House and Senate chambers
to minimize possibilities of influence?

Yes, because physical access is a factor ...................... (
No, because physical access is not a factor .................... (
Such possibilities do not exist ................................ ( )

Explain answer, if desirable.

 

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Are there some things you feel it is improper to report about legislators?

Please explain your answer.

Always .................. (
Frequently ............. . (
Occasionally ............ (
Rarely . . .. ...... (
Never . ...... . (

Are legislators restrained in their relations with reporters:

Please explain your answer.

Does your political persuasion have any relationship to your dealings

with legislators?

Explanation desirable .

Always ................ (
Frequently ............. (
Occasionally ........... (
Rarely ................. (
Never ................. (

Always ................ .(
Frequently ............. (
Occasionally ........... (
Rarely ................. (
Never ................. .(
DK .................... (

Are there some legislators with whom you have closer relationships

than others?

If you do have closer social relationships with some legislators does this
relationship make any difference in your treatment of the news affecting

such legislator or legislators? (How)

Please explain answer.

Yes ................... (
No .................... (
Treat them all the same.(

Makes no difference ..... (
Makes big difference. . . .(
Makes some difference. .(

vvvvv vvvvv

V

)
)
)

 

 

 

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

Do you tend to identify with one major party, both major parties, or
neither?

One party .............. ( )
Both parties ............ ( 1
Neither ................ ( )

Do legislators ask for your advice on public matters?

Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................. ( )
Never ................. ( )
Do you give it?
Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................. ( )
Never ................. .( )

Do you feel that advice to legislators has any impact on their decisions?

Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................. ( )
Never ................. ( )
DK .................... ( )

Probe.

Do you think reporters can maintain a completely detached view in their
relations with legislators?

Always. . . . ............ ( )
Frequently ........... '. ( )
Occasionally ........... .( )
Rarely ................ ( )
Never ................. ( )

Probe.

Do you think that the longer a reporter stays on the capitol beat the greater
the tendency to attempt to influence public policy?

Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................. ( )
DK .................... ( >

Probe.

 

 

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

Do you think Lansing reporters should be rotated?

(3) Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... .( )
Rarely ................ ( )
Never ................. ( )
(b) If rotation suggested, on what basis?
Do you think Lansing reporters favor one political party over another?
Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... .( )
Rarely ................. ( )
Never ................. ( )
DK .................... ( )
Comment invited.
Do you believe that a reporter's attitudes (stemming from personal
background and personal experiences) are related to his treatment of
political news?
Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................. ( )
Never ................. ( )
DK .................... ( )

Please explain your answer.

Do you believe reporters can influence legislators because as reporters,
they are the life-line of publicity?

Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................ ( )
Never ................. ( )
DK .................... ( )

Please explain your answer.

Do you feel that reporters assume a proprietory or "watch-dog" attitude
in relations with legislators?

Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely. . . ............. ( )
Never ................. ( )
DK .................... ( )

Probe.

 

 

36. Do you believe reporters make news, i. e. , develop ideas for stories,
investigations, and use friendly legislators to give an official flavor?

Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................ ( )
Never ................. ( )
DK .................... ( )

Probe.

37. It has been suggested that reporters shape legislative behavior in the
following manner:

(a) Reporters define "news" and therefore influence
legislators in determining what the issues are.

 

 

(b) Reporters "pressure” legislators into taking action
because of the way reporters play a story.

(c) Reporters serve as an essential link between
lawmakers and the outside world and as a means
of communication within the legislative process.

Your comments are invited.

38. Do you believe legislators leak stories to select reporters:

Always ............... ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................ ( )
Never ................. ( )
DK ..... . .............. ( )

(a) If stories are leaked, why?

39. Do you believe that entertaining legislators is productive of stories?

Always ................ ( )
Frequently ............. ( )
Occasionally ........... ( )
Rarely ................ ( )
Never ................ ( )
DK ................... ( )

Probe.

40. Would you want to spend your entire professional career reporting
politics?

Why?

41. Would you say that, on the whole, legislation would work much better,
somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse, or much worse if
there were less neWSpapers represented in Lansing by regularly
assigned correspondents?

(a) Much better ........... ( )
Somewhat better ....... .( )
About the same ........ .( )
Somewhat worse -------- ( )
Much worse ............ ( )
DK/NA ................ ( )

(b) If there were more newspapers represented in Lansing by
regularly assigned correspondents?

MUCh better ............ ( )
Somewhat better ....... .( )
About the same ......... ( )
Somewhat worse ........ ( )
Much worse ........... ( )
DK/ NA ................ ( )

(c) If there were more daily newspapers in the state?

Much better ............ ( )
Somewhat better ........ ( )
About the same ........ ( )
Somewhat worse ........ ( )
Much worse ........... ( )
DK/ NA ................ ( )

Explanation desirable.

42. Now, as you think over your evaluation of capitol reporters, what would
you say makes a reporter effective?

 

 

 

‘v
x
'1
II.
\
l
A
1

.
.

.;.\

,ci
iL

 

'"'iiiiijiiiijjiiiijiiiijiiiiii “