Two economists, who went looking for proof, found little hard evidence – good or bad – of the effects of the press on democracy.  So they set about establishing the truth of the claim themselves, in a new study that nails down the relationship between newspaper coverage and political accountability.

 

While previous studies have argued that the recipe for good governance includes knowledgeable voters and an active press, none have identified which comes first.  In a working paper featured on the Web site of the National Bureau of Economic Research, MIT’s James Sunder Jr. and Stockholm University’s David Strömberg produce the most convincing evidence yet by identifying a chain of impact that starts with the press.  Journalists, they say, kick-start a virtuous cycle by covering politics, which educates voters, who in turn put pressure on politicians, who then work harder and produce more constituent-friendly policies.  House of Representative members who aren’t scrutinized by hometown reporters, Snyder and Strömberg find, work less for their constituencies – they testify at fewer hearings, serve on fewer committees, and vote more often along party lines.  As a result, federal policy tends to break unfavorably for their constituents, and federal spending is lower in their districts.  When politicians do receive coverage, they offer testimony at almost fifty percent more congressional hearings and slice off 10 percent more pork for their districts – roughly $2,700 a person – than colleagues the press ignores.

 

“Voters need information to keep politicians accountable and the press delivers this information,” write Snyder and Strömberg, who based their findings on a study of online editions of 161 newspapers, covering an average of 385 congressional districts between 1991 and 2002....

 

That congressmen work harder when covered by newspapers might be good for locals, but it doesn’t necessarily translate into benefits for the country at large.  After all, eager politicians don’t necessarily come from the neediest districts, and those districts that do get federal dollars may not use them wisely – think Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere.”  Snyder and Strömberg, sensitive to this distinction, do not claim that newspaper coverage focused on Congress makes the country better, only that it increases the chances that representatives will help constituents back home.  At least it used to, when there were enough newspapers, with enough resources, to keep watch.