In cataloguing the sins of the press, I tend to overlook laziness. Laziness is why reporters and editors use shorthand rather than seek the exact word or phrase.
In today’s New York Times, for example, there is a story headlined,"
Ad War Heats Up in the Maneuvering on Judicial Picks."
Reporter David Kirkpatrick tells us in his lead:
"A conservative advocacy group began broadcasting
commercials Monday supporting two of President Bush's blocked judicial
nominees, and drew an immediate rebuttal from liberal opponents."
Conservative? Liberal? OK, you will justify those descriptions lower down, won’t you?
Kirkpatrick never does that with "Progress for America," the so-called conservative group. Like, who’s the boss? Who belongs? Where does the dough come from?
He describes the other group, People for the American Way, as liberal. True, if a bit terse.
Does this make Kirkpatrick a right-winger? No. A bad person? No. A bad reporter? Well, that would be jumping to a big conclusion on too little evidence.
But I do not know the organization "Progress for America." Is it political or judicial, conservative, neo-con or libertarian? (Once again, everything to the right of center is "conservative" in the impoverished intellecutal world of Establishment journalism.) Is it a real organization or a front, like the "senior" organizations founded by Richard Viguerie.
If he does know, he should have shared the information. If not, he’s a bit lazy. And so was the editor who did not question the shorthand.