Technology Feeds a Diet of News Bites

Pressed relentlessly by their outlets for more news more quickly, campaign-trail reporters made a discovery this election season that was at once helpful and dispiriting.

Using laptops equipped with wireless modems or hand-held e-mail devices, they were sometimes able to -- and therefore expected to -- file dispatches from campaign charter planes several thousand feet in the air.

During the four years since the last presidential campaign, media technologies that were mostly novelties have become commonplace.

Reporters from every television network and cable outlet now carry miniature broadcast-quality digital video cameras. In addition to at least one cellphone, many journalists carry a digital voice recorder, at least one hand-held e-mail device and a wireless modem.

The result, some say, has been a never-ending stream of news bites that at times has made the first draft of campaign history read more like a stenographer’s transcript.

When presumptive Democratic nominee John F. Kerry finished having shoulder surgery last week, one reporter sent an e-mail to his home office -- as well as to other journalists -- that said little more than: “He’s out of surgery.” The news, such as it was, made it to the Internet and wire services within minutes.

Early in the primary season, former Democratic hopeful Wesley K. Clark slipped on ice in Bismarck, N.D. Footage was aired within a few hours.

“It’s like listening to all-news radio where only the headlines are read,” said Michael Parks, head of the Annenberg School of Journalism at USC and former editor of the Los Angeles Times. “People have the ability to be far better informed through all this technology, but they also have the ability to delude themselves into thinking that 10 or 12 words is all they need to know.”

Much was made in 2000 about the rise of the Internet as a news source and the advances in technology that could deliver scenes and words from the campaign trail faster.

In fact, that campaign was something of a laboratory for then-developing technologies that have since become not only workable but standard equipment this time around, testing the ability of news organizations, and campaigns, to keep up.

In 2000, Vice President Al Gore fell in love with a new hand-held e-mail device called a BlackBerry, and he and his staff traveled with them. This season, such personal digital assistants, or PDAs, are standard fare.

The palm-size contraptions require typing with the thumbs, and although some reporters have written entire stories on them, the vast majority of hand-held dispatches consist of a few lines, dashed off as the campaigns board another plane or rush to another event.

The result has been dozens, even hundreds, of news snippets pouring into media home outlets that must then be sorted.

“You know everything instantly, which can be both good and bad,” said Mary Murphy, the senior political producer at CBS. “If you want to be tough and fair-minded, it’s sometimes better to step back and make a few old-fashioned phone calls” to round out reporting before airing or printing a story.

The omnipresence of video and voice-recording devices, and the ability to ship the information from almost anywhere at almost any time, has had another unforeseen effect on the campaigns, many journalists and others say -- the increased unwillingness of candidates to talk casually with reporters, and thereby the public.

During the 2000 campaign, as most television crews lugged crates of equipment around, a gregarious young NBC producer with purple-rimmed eyeglasses carried one of the few miniature digital video cameras on the trail.

As the crews set up for shots, Alexandra Pelosi captured images never before seen: the intimate moments in the evolution of George W. Bush, who went from a candidate giggling as he bowled oranges down airplane aisles to a newly elected president shouldering the weight of a nation.

Her acclaimed documentary “Journeys with George” helped land Pelosi a deal with HBO to make a film on both Democratic and Republican hopefuls. She arrived on the 2004 campaign trail only to find that nearly every television outlet was now rolling at nearly every moment, and the presidential hopefuls were rarely departing from their scripts.

“I genuinely believe that there’s no such thing as an honest moment in these primaries,” Pelosi lamented. “Now it’s a reality television show. There’s never an off-the-record moment, [so] all the candidates became caricatures of their made-for-TV-persona. Everything is being shot and everything that’s shot is being talked about.”

Although the small digital video cameras are now ubiquitous, they are essentially worthless without the high-speed Internet connection that is required to transmit the footage.

In elections past, the first question traveling reporters asked about the next night’s hotel was a half-joking, “Does it have a bar?” This season, the question is a dead-serious, “Does it have high-speed Internet?”

While the press corps covering President Bush’s campaign still sometimes finds itself with slow-speed dial-up connections, the Kerry campaign has brought aboard a small company called Soapbox to keep the news flowing at maximum speed. Using specially designed equipment, Soapbox can turn a single high-speed connection into a gateway for a nearly limitless number of reporters.

Again, the ability to send information quickly has also meant journalists are expected to “file” video and so-called feeds more frequently. As the campaigns speed through three and four states and five or six cities in a day, reporters are frequently able to send only short snippets and quotes repeatedly throughout the day.

As media outlets scramble to adjust to the new technologies, however, some observers credit them with rather swiftly recognizing the speed by which the basic campaign-trail facts now fly -- and are gobbled up by people using the Internet, watching television or carrying their own e-mail-equipped PDAs. Some believe that new technology could ultimately raise the level of public understanding of the campaigns.

“Technology is actually driving us toward analysis” of the news, argues William Powers, National Journal’s media critic.

“Simple facts have been discounted because they’re this incredibly cheap commodity.... The technology is forcing reporters to be analytical in what used to be straight, daily stories. But the technology doesn’t help you write a good analysis. We’re getting more analysis, but I’m not sure we’re yet getting better analysis.”

Jay Rosen, head of the journalism department at New York University, said the quest to provide quick, daily analysis has too often meant coverage of the horserace aspect of the campaign -- who’s up and who’s down on any given day, rather than a focus on more substantial policy differences between the candidates.

“The best example of that is coverage of polling results as news, when in fact these are things [media outlets] have driven themselves by sponsoring the poll,” said Rosen.

“It’s not only speculation but highly, highly abstract. When we talk about analysis, most of it is of the horse race, of the game. It’s very insider coverage.”