That's not news.
It begins at the top and trickles down. From Washington, to Jefferson City to Springfield. While it's not an absolute truth, it's certainly the trend. It includes Republican elected officials, candidates, staffers, all the way down to G.O.P. voters . . . they're just more wary of the media, and put up a larger shield when around us, than Democrats do.
I know a Democratic lawmaker in Jeff. City that invites me into his office, and feels very comfortable talking shop and dishing dirt. I know a Republican lawmaker in Springfield who has purposely avoided on-camera interviews with me, and wants his questions in advance.
Maybe that's our fault. I'd argue that, it partly is. All of us -- as a media entity -- can share the blame. But this is less about blame and more about repairing what's wrong.
The discussion I'd like to share with you is how we as the media need to do a better job improving relations with the Republican party as a whole.
Or at least, that's the opinion of The Des Moines Register political columnist David Yepsen, who made the comment during a discussion about how campaigns use the media at Drake University.
"We have to work harder with conservatives to earn their trust than we do with liberals," Yepsen said during the discussion. "It's a tougher time to deal with the right because of the perceived bias, and we have to go the extra mile with them," he added.
Yepsen said his challenge is dealing with Republicans who distrust his paper because of its liberal editorial page. But he made a larger point about how to deal with conservatives, and how it can improve relationships, and eventually -- coverage for viewers and readers.
"Democrats look at the press like, we can work with you. Republicans look at the press like -- you are going to screw me," said Matt Dowd, former Republican strategist.
Dowd agreed with Yepsen that the Republicans distrust media. He said it's not good for their campaigns to do so-- and added that in many instances, the G.O.P. doesn't help itself by hammering the mainstream media at every turn.
But the problem, as identified by the panelists, is not political bias. It's more of a perspective bias, a lifestyle bias.
And a lot of that taps into faith.
The majority of mainstream media types don't go to church multiple times a week. But a good portion of Republicans do. So Dowd said, that when "you talk about with faith with a reporter, they sometimes look at you like you are from Mars, and that's a problem."
Yepsen said he attended more church services while covering Pat Robertson than he did ever on his own. But he said it helped him learn about Robertson, and respect the man and the candidate.
"I respect these guys, and the Evangelical movement. They are a force. And while we're back here snickering about people who go to church three times a week, they're out electing Presidents," Yepsen said.
Yepsen said that he's had to spend more time with Republican campaigns in the past to earn their trust. "I said, I don't care what my op-ed page is writing. I want to learn more about you. I've got a clean slate and an open mind, let me in," Yepsen said.
In most cases, he said it has worked. But not without time and trust.
Some in the audience said the media shouldn't have to bend over backwards and give special treatment to the right. It certainly sparked a debate about how pressure from the right's "liberal media" mantra impacts newsroom decisions.
In the national newsrooms I've heard about and encountered around the country, there's no doubt that most of the people lean left. But that can't be said for the Springfield newsroom I work in now. In fact, there's some evidence that newsrooms are more worried about being pegged with "a liberal bias." And that's not good for coverage decisions either.
The argument I would make is that the media could do a little work on its p.r. relations with Republicans. Not special treatment or coverage. But talking about the elephant in the room is a start.
It's not good when Republican legislators don't call me back (and the rumor in the Capitol is that they do it on purpose.) But is it my own fault? The hard right critics will answer passionately "yes."
Arguing this point is fruitless. Refuting the partisans is a waste of time. It really does me no good professionally to hold or present a bias. My job only works if I talk to each and every side. Every time a person cries fowl of "bias" just because the story they are reading doesn't fit what they want to believe -- that person loses credibility. And that hurts that particular side's argument. But I've also learned that many times you must ignore the hard partisans claims to break through the real issue.
So my pledge as a journalist is to work harder with those lawmakers, staffers, politicos (on both sides -- but mostly on the right) who have a distrust, fear or other issues with the media . . .. . . as long as those people pledge to understand the job I have to do, and can work towards respecting the work the media does- rather than taking the easy way out, and dismissing or bashing it.
