Pack journalism, also known as herd journalism is when a group of reporters are assigned to follow a single presidential candidate for weeks or months at a time, like a pack of hounds sicked at a fox.

The first chapter of The Boys on the Bus, the recommended reading for this class, provides insight into the inner workings of reporting on a political campaign, from the perspective of Rolling Stone Magazine reporter Timothy Crouse. The book looks at the 1972 Presidential election and in this chapter explores the concept of pack journalism. Looking at the news each day I have noticed that the same stories are appearing but now, having read this chapter, I can see that these stories aren't neccessarily the most important, but what is the news agenda for the media.

“The pack is divided into clichés- the national political reporters, the campaign reporters the wire service men and the network correspondents. The most experienced national journalists often don’t know the names of the men from smaller papers, but they all fed off the same pool report, the same daily handout, the same speech by the candidate and the whole pack was isolated in the same mobile village. After awhile they began to believe the same rumors, subscribe to the same theories and write the same stories”

This above quote from the book says it all. Although most journalists today, even those who are poltical journalists and in a sense 'part of the pack', are against pack journalism, it still occurs. Laptops next to each other, the phone running off the hook and circulating notes leave open a large temptation for journalists to conform to the news agenda of another media outlets. The pack seems to be like a small family, all trying to support each other. Karl Flemning, a former political journalist is quoted in the book saying that editors don’t want scoops, but their abiding interest is to make sure that nobody else has got anything that they don’t have, not getting something that nobody has.

Take for example today’s headlines in of some prominent media outlets in today's news. A USA Today top political headlines was “Alaska probe seeks subpoenas as Palin halts cooperation”. The New York Times has also reported on this, its headline “Alaska Lawmakers Vote to Subpoena Todd Palin”. At a first look, I cannot judge the bias of each media outlet towards a particular candidate, but the headlines sure indicate pack journalism in action. Other prominent pack journalism stories include Barack Obama’s lipstick on a bull comments and the life and family of Sarah Palin. Both are arguably insignificant in regards to the campaign, but they are newsworthy and fit the media’s news agenda. Imagine if one media outlet did not report on Sarah Palin’s family background, but instead chose to concentrate on her intentions as future VP. Would the public think that outlet was incapable of reporting the news? That they are lazy? They are ill-informed?

Then I ask, are we pack bloggers? The media’s overwhelming obsession with Sarah Palin has resulted in many a news story and we have recognized this, blogging furiously about her life and credentials as a VP nominee. I will give us some credit though, we have been critical of media bias, but the fact that we are blogging about here, especially her life shows we are recognizing the news agenda and refuting it or agreeing.

So the question remains, have the political reporters of the 2008 presidenial election race conformed to pack journalism? Is it beneficial to the public to hear the same story from all media outlets to get different perspectives or would it be better to hear fresh and new news from every media outlet.
What the news closely..dont subscribe to the pack.