FAIR – Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting – the national media watch group, released a new report on poverty in the news last week. FAIR conducted a survey of the network news over a three-year period, analyzing the reporting on poverty and related topics. Authors Steve Rendall and Neil deMause conclude the reporting was sparse:

Yet despite being an issue that directly or indirectly affects a huge chunk of the U.S. population, poverty and inequality receive astonishingly little coverage on nightly network newscasts. An exhaustive search of weeknight news broadcasts on CBS, NBC and ABC found that with rare exceptions, such as the aftermath of Katrina, poverty and the poor seldom even appear on the evening news—and when they do, they are relegated mostly to merely speaking in platitudes about their hardships….Driving home poverty’s low rank as a news priority is the fact that fewer nightly news segments were dedicated to it than to millionaire pop star Michael Jackson. During a study period that saw 58 stories about poverty, the three network programs dedicated 69 stories to Jackson’s legal woes. Of the three networks, only NBC aired more stories on poverty than on Michael Jackson (25 to 24). Moreover, in 2005, the year that saw the Katrina disaster and the culmination of Jackson’s rather less consequential trial, the networks deemed the pop star’s legal problems twice as newsworthy as the economic plight of tens of millions of poor citizens, running 44 stories on Michael Jackson to 22 for poverty.

(Note, while the reporters refer to inequality and poverty in the same breath, the analysis is limited to stories “mentioning the words’poverty,‘’low income,‘’homeless,‘’welfare‘ or’food stamps’….”) The authors largely confirm what we know about media coverage of poverty, but they didn’t set out to determine the reasons for (in)frequency or framing of the reports. Yet, they draw on conversations with reporters for some conclusions.

What FAIR’s study cannot do is show why network journalists assign such a low priority to stories that affect so many. For that we must rely on the journalists themselves, many of whom tell us that the poverty narrative is neither compelling nor good for business, as advertisers aren’t fond of negative stories. Unlike the powerful sources who are overrepresented on the nightly news, the poor don’t have public relations staffs or corporate communications offices. They are left to depend on the increasingly quaint journalistic ideals that once implored journalists to be champions of society’s underdogs and to comfort the afflicted. As news seems to be redefining itself as a service for those in upscale demographics, as network news shows find new reasons to avoid covering the powerless, it’s important to remember that the American public is indeed interested in poverty. Indeed, one “top tier” Democratic presidential contender has built a campaign around poverty, which has caused a flurry of reports suggesting “class warfare” is afoot in the Democratic Party (New York Times, 7/16/07; L. A. Times, 5/28/07). But as John Edwards has traveled around the country campaigning on the issue, he has answered repeated questions from journalists and others about why he thinks poverty is a winning political issue with a response that seems to stun some reporters in its simplicity: “I don’t know that it is. This is not a political strategy. It’s a huge moral issue facing America.” Those are words that public-minded nightly news executives, producers and reporters ought to take to heart.

This isn’t the conclusion I draw. Even though it is a moral issue, there’s little evidence that the public is interested in poverty (let alone policy solutions to poverty), particularly when compared to other issues. We’d do better working to adress inequality if producers and reporters focus the spotlight on issues that affect all of us in ways that resonate with public understanding and interest. Last weekend, I saw Pangs of the Messiah at Theater J in Washington. (A terrific production that I highly recommend!) It was my second time seeing the play, and for the second time I was struck by a line in the play: “If you tell the people that they have to sit down and understand, they’ll get up and leave…” Pangs is about West Bank settlers, it’s “set in the future after the signing of a Peace Accord between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority.” The line refers to the desire of the settlers’ leader to explain to others why they must “resist the dismantling of their settlement by the Israeli Defense Forces”. But, it struck me as an important point for all advocates. We won’t be able to persuade the public to do something about “poverty” by forcing disinterested viewers to watch that story more often, even with more details, new facts, or better spokespeople. We need instead a new lens for viewing the issue, one that IS of interest to viewers and that they will stay in their seats to watch, a storyline that builds support for policy solutions. The next step we take should focus on finding the new lens, the big story for a progressive policy agenda that focuses on social inclusion and economic mobility.