October 27, 2006

No Negativity, No News Coverage?

Friday's Tennessean has an interview with Vanderbilt University political science professor John Geer about negative campaign ads. This segment...

What portion of campaign ads in presidential campaigns did you find were negative?
Over the last 44 years there has been an increase in negativity. But it's basically a 50-50 divide. But if you were to listen to coverage of campaigns you'd think you only get negative ads.

There's the Corker-Ford race for the U.S. Senate, of course. Also, the media has covered the 17th District state Senate race, where the attack ads are flying between incumbent Sen. Mae Beavers and former Sen. Bob Rochelle. The media also has covered the 23rd district state Senate race, where well-funded Democratic nominee Mary Parker has launched a vicious and false attack ad against Republican nominee Jack Johnson.

But the media ignores the 21st district state Senate race between 36-year-incumbent state Sen. Doug Henry, the Democrat, and Republican challenger Bob Krumm, in which there have been no attack ads and nothing but civility between the two sides.

Why? Is it because the media believes Henry unlikely to lose? Then why do they care about the 23rd district race between Johnson and Parker? The 23rd district, after all, is heavily Republican and Johnson, the GOP nominee, is the heavy favorite. The 21st district, where political newcomer Krumm, 40, is taking on 80-year-old Sen. Henry, who was elected in 1970 before thousands of district's residents were even born, is much more evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.

And it's not as if The Tennessean can't find fault with Sen. Henry. Four years ago, The Tennessean even endorsed Henry's opponent in the Democratic primary.

Krumm is waging an energetic campaign, both door-to-door and appearing at numerous community events and candidate forums, and staying around to talk issues with voters. He even took three months of unpaid leave from a well-paying job in order to campaign, and he's raised enough money to produce and air TV ads. Surely that marks the Krumm campaign as a serious campaign worthy of coverage by the newspapers and broadcast media that purport to cover the important news in the community - worthy equally if not moreso than having lots of money in the campaign bank account.

Sen. Henry, meanwhile, has all but disappeared from the campaign trail, skipping some big events, putting in only brief appearances at others, and refusing to debate Krumm.

In fact, Sen. Henry has not debated a general-election challenger since 1994. Since then, according to Krumm, some 66,128 voters have either newly registered in the 21st district or have been drawn into the district's new boundaries. That's about 65 percent of the district's currently registered voters. And just since 2002, the last time Sen. Henry was up for re-election, 24,416 voters - nearly a quarter of the 21st district's voters - are brand new to the area.

As far as I can tell, the only reason the media isn't covering the race is that neither Krumm nor Henry has gone negative.

That's a shame, because they're missing a great story with several great angles.

Krumm started his road into politics unconventionally - with a blog, which he launched soon after the Operation Tennessee Waltz arrests of four incumbent lawmakers on federal bribery charges. On his blog, Krumm wrote about ethics issues and branched out into other political issues, earning respect from bloggers on both sides of the political aisle. When Sen. Henry refused to call for the resignation or ouster of the three Democratic senators arrested on bribery charges, Krumm tossed his hat into the ring, citing the ethics code he learned as a West Point cadet: "A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do."

Krumm's weblog represents a new way to stay in touch with and interact with constituents, and Krumm has used it as well to showcase his commitment to full disclosure and complete openness by posting all of the "candidate surveys" that he has received from various special interest groups, even groups that weren't likely to support him. He also has posted all of his his campaign finance disclosures online.

Sen. Henry, elected 23 years before the Internet was opened to public use, makes no such similarly interactive effort to communicate with constituents and voters via his campaign website, doesn't make his campaign finance disclosures easily available on his website, and doesn't let the public see how he has answered those surveys from the various interest groups.

The two candidates' campaign disclosures are another good angle: Henry's money mostly comes in big-dollar gifts from special interests, while Krumm's mostly comes in smaller amounts from individuals.

A story about the 21st district race would be a story about a clash between old and new, and between the entrenched elites and the next generation - a youthful challenger taking on 36-year-incumbent; a challenger using the Internet to discuss issues, raise money and find supporters while the incumbent hides from voters, avoids public debate and gets his money from special interests.

So, then, why isn't the Nashville news media covering the 21st district race between Bob Krumm and Sen. Henry?

The only answer seems to be the lack of negative attack ads.

That doesn't reflect positively on the news media.

Update: If after reading this you are motivated to donate to Bob Krumm's campaign, please click here.