Today’s Albuquerque Journal reminds me of a problem that arises in our body politic and is reflected in our news mediums.
The Journal runs David Broder, the "liberal" Washington Post columnist on one page and Cal Thomas, the "conservative" whose work is syndicated by Tribune Media Services.
This kind of Op Ed positioning is common and I presume the Journal folks and most readers would consider it to be "balance." But it isn’t.
Thomas would not be unhappy, I think, with this description: committed rightist, seriously ideological and morally certain.
Broder, who I have read and watched on TV for years, thinks of himself as a reporter, mostly, but might concede that he has a liberal bent. Of what does that bent consist? He dislikes partisanship and hates ideological extremism. He seeks the middle. And exhibits nostalgia sometimes for New Deal-Fair Deal solutions.
You see where I am going? Thomas and Broder do not occupy parallel places on the political spectrum. It’s not even a close question. Noam Chomsky might be a leftist equivalent of Thomas.
(Not that I want to read Chomsky, who writes with all the vivacity of a 20th century German philosopher. Not to mention his ideological bent which leaves reality miles behind.)
Now this is not the fault of newspaper editors. The reason the Broders and Thomases are paired is that the American left wing is thin. But were the editors to think a bit harder, they might come up with a variety of lefties.
I would direct them to the American Prospect, the Progressive, the New York Review of Books and Harper’s for starters.
Or we could clone Molly Ivins.
About a week ago, I wrote about the routine journalistic practice of advancing the story, wondering if anybody would do that in the wake of a Pete Domenici reversal.
He had expressed support of Sen. Jeff Bingaman's amodest effort to curb greehouse gas emissions. However, after a session with Vice President Cheney, he decided otherwise.
Advancing the story, I wrote, might take the form of asking Domenici what happened in that meeting.
Well, credit Michael Coleman, of the Albuquerque Journal's Washington bureau, with doing just that.
Coleman tells us today that Domenci denies caving to pressure or getting talked out of his position by Cheney. Rather. the GOP Senator said, fellow Senate Republicans dissuaded him by saying they found the Bingaman amendment confusing.
As Coleman tells us it, neither Deomienici nor Bingaman wanted to endanger the passage of the energy bill under consideration, so they have agreed to hold hearings on global warming afterwards.
I'm not sure I accept that whole scenario, but that's my problem. Fact is, Coleman did the job properly. And his column today lays out it quite clearly.
PS Coleman also touches on the chances that Attorney-General Patricia Madrid may challenge Rep. Heather Wilson next year. In that connection, the other side of page B6 is instructive. That's where Roll Call summarizes Wilson's votes this past week. Roll Call is a wonderful feature of the Sunday newspaper.
Yesterday I took on the stupid "objectity" that encourages journalists to "give both sides" and ignore the question of truth.
In fairness to reporters, the truth may be elusive or there may be insufficient time to find it.
In the story I used, however, about Karl Rove's attack on liberals, the truth was easily established. And failure to do so in close proximity to Rove's charges is terrible journalism.
Incidentally, I have been thinking about why Rove said what he said and I have decided he probably chose his words carefully. For their essence is that they paper over the huge gap between the 9/11 terrorists on one hand, and the Bush war on Iraq, on the other.
Conflating those two disparate subjects into a fictitious "War on Terrorism" has been the strategy of the White House from the beginning. A successful strategy, too.
There is an Associated Press story in today’s Albuquerque Journal on the response of "liberals" to Karl Rove’s comments on their reaction to 9/11. It is a case study in lousy journalism.
This is the first paragraph, the lead, of the story:
Democrats said Thursday that White House adviser Karl Rove should either apologize or resign for accusing liberals of wanting "therapy and understanding" for the Sept. 11 attackers, escalating partisan rancor that threatens to consume Washington.
Notice those words following "Sept. 11 attackers," in which reporter Jim Abrams puts the Democrats’ protest in the context of partisan rancor.
In the next paragraph he details that context, tying the Democrats' complaint to Howard Dean’s criticism of Republicans, a House GOP Representative’s statement that Democrats demonize Christians and Senator Durbin’s reference to Nazis and Soviets when he read from an FBI report on Guantanamo Bay.
Note, however, he has yet to consider Rove’s statement in the context of the historical record.
The story proceeds to quote the White House response to Rove and complaints about Rove from Democratic Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, as well as a comment from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who deplores polarization. And it devotes a long graph to recapping Rove’s comments.
Still no consideration whatsoever of the truth of Rove’s charges.
In fact, as everybody but Rove surely knows, in the wake of 9/11, the nation was just about unanimous in backing a military strike on al Qaeda and its protector, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. (Dissent came when the President and his men wrapped a pre-existing target, Iraq, into a "War on Terrorism.")
The reporter – assuming he was born yesterday – might have looked at the clips. In which case, he might have been moved to say – what? - that Rove was mistaken? Maybe. That he obfuscated? Maybe.
Now "partisan rancor" is a valid concern these days, but surely the more basic question is whether President Bush’s political right-hand lied. And a journalist who writes at least nine paragraphs (the Journal might have cut some from the bottom to fit the space) without getting anywhere near that question simply doesn’t know what he is doing. Probably – I’m guessing - he thinks he’s being objective. Getting both sides, you know.
And so what if he ignores the simple question, "What’s true?"
This is the same "objectivity" that helped a cynical little alcoholic from Wisconsin become the powerful and terrible Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy 50 years ago.
Will we ever learn?
John Leo, the right-wing columnist who specializes in critiquing "liberal media bias," often noting when others in journalism leave out small but key identifications, just wrote an argument (Albuquerque Journal, June 17) that Republican Rudolph Giuiliani is paying a political price for defying "reactionary liberalism" to save New York City.
Leo admits Giuliani is imperfect. He notes the former Mayor’s two remarriages and at least one messy divorce, for example, as well as his reputation for being thin-skinned.
But Leo omits Giuliani’s adulteries, well-publicized, when he was still Mayor, still married to Donna Hanover and carrying on with the woman who would be his next wife.
Hmmm.
Questions: Is adultery is a sin only when Democrats do it? Is leaving out small but key elements bad form only when other journalists are guilty?
Just as journalists do more rewriting than writing (or should), so what reporters do a lot more advancing of stories than breaking them. That is to say, they find new information or a new angle, add additional testimony or pertinent background.
What brings that to mind is the totally unsurprising story in today’s Albuquerque Journal that Sen. Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico announced "he would not sponsor an amendment to address global warming as part of this year’s energy bill."
Background: The Bush Administration won’t admit global warming is a problem, despite near-unanimity among scientists.
Domenici has long pushed big subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, as well as the nuclear power industry. He opposed raising the CAFE limits on autos, too.
However, he is working closely with New Mexico’s other Senator, Democrat Jeff Bingaman, to get an energy bill through Congress. Bingaman has written an amendment that would address global warming by setting a modest limit on greenhouse gas emissions. Domenici indicated earlier that he might co-sponsor it.
But last Friday, says the Los Angeles Times, "Vice-President Dick Cheney met privately with the Senator to outline the Bush Administration’s objections to a mandatory limit."
That seems to have turned Domenici around.
So to advance this story, reporters would try to find out exactly what Cheney said. What were the Administration’s objections? Was the conversation entirely technical or did political considerations come up?
If I were on the beat, I would ask Domenici, first, what he and the Veep talked about. Then, Cheney and then anybody else in the room or in the loop.
Let’s watch for that effort, shall we?
"Democrats Are Trying to Make Hay of Prewar Memos."
That was the headline on a Knight-Ridder story published in the Albuquerque Journal June 19.
"Party’s Leaders Are Staying Mum" was the sub-head.
Huh?! Contradiction?
I thought for a moment and guessed that the headline writer was distinguishing between rank-and-file Democrats and their leaders.
That turned out to be true. And it turned out that this was a tough story to headline. Reporter Dick Polman’s opening graph, a stage-setter, did not include the lead to the story. Paragraph 2 told us "grassroots liberals" are pointing to the Downing Street memos. In the next graph, Polman tells us that about a dozen House Democrats held a hearing on the documents and then, in the fourth paragraph, we learn that "most Democratic leaders have remained mum" on the memos.
The headline writer might have done better with "Grassroots Democrats Make Hay… etc." and then, "But Leaders Stay Mum."
That’s second-guessing, though, and since there’s lots I don’t know including how much time the editor had, it may not be fair.
Another imperfect Journal headline introduced Michael Kinsley’s column Saturday, June 18. "Money Erodes Away at Democracy," it read.
"Erodes Away"?
Now I would understand "Money Eats Away at Democracy." Or, "Money Erodes Democracy," though that might be too short. But "erodes away" is ugly. And with money as the subject of the sentence, the verb possibilities are many, including "subverts," "weakens" and "dominates."
The headline in question doesn’t mislead, but it sure reads as if written by an ESL student.
Do you know what's in the Downing Street memo? If not, that's because the Establishment press hasn't gone overboard in writing about it.
If so, you know that it was a intelligence report telling Tony Blair - well before our attack on Iraq - that the White House wanted war with Saddam and would adjust intelligence to back that policy. The British have not questioned its authenticity.
The other day, however, Blair and Bush said the essential element wasn't true, they didn't want war.
Somebody, therefore, is lying.
Now there's a second British memo. The Sunday Times of London posted it on its web site. Written by Blair aides some eight months before the war, it says Washington was "virtually silent" on the problems of post-war Iraq.
The White House has noted the date, saying "there was significant postwar planning in the time that elapsed."
Keep on eye on this story. I will, too. First, to see how much ink this memo gets. And secondly, to watch as American reporters check the White House story.
There I go, day after day, with my negative criticisms of the news business. Rarely do I see, no less expound on the bright side. So it is with some surprise and some pleasure that I report on a luncheon discussion today sponsored by the Albuquerque Press Women.
The subject was "ethics." The panelists included Bob Gassaway, who teaches journalism at UNM; Phill Casaus, editor of the Albuquerque Tribune, and
Belinda Rawlins, manager of the Media Literacy Project.
Gassaway spoke first, delivering some down-to-earth commentary on ethics in the newsroom. Given deadline pressures, he noted, ethical problems may not be identified. Further, reporters are likely to handle the problems themselves, when it might make sense to get help from their editors. Also, ethical problems can be difficult to describe accurately. And it is easy to push them aside as unimportant when they aren’t.
Gassaway identified a "staus quo" temptation – saying, because it’s easy, "We’ve always done it this way" rather than rethinking the issue or situation each time.
Impressive. He gave us the nitty-gritty simply and without pretension.
Phil Casaus made me sit up and take notice, however, when he said journalism has higher standards of ethics today than "years ago." That, he suggested, is because there’s more attention paid today. What happens inside the newsroom no longer stays there. And there are all kinds of critics outside.
On reflection, I think he’s quite right. (Though, we must keep in mind that journalistic ethics is one subject and media responsibility another.)
Phil also suggested that writing and reporter are better – by which I think he meant of higher quality – than 20 years ago.
Hmmm. I don’t know. I have been impressed with a lot of the current Web-influenced reporting. Yet I think most tough reporting on Iraq came from the monthlies and books, not daily newspapers.
And while there is a lot of dynamite writing going on at the N.Y. Times, Washington Post and other major dailies, I see awful stuff daily – poor usage, poor spelling, poor choice of words and gobs of ignorance.
Credit Casaus, however, with accentuating the positive. I enjoyed looking up at the sky after all this staring into the gutter.
Belinda Rawlins, manager of the New Mexico Media Literacy Project, then offered a concise presentation dealing with the news media and new technology, corporate power in the age of deregulation, as well as the current political threat to the (relative) independence of public broadcasting.
The question-and-answer period was lively, touching on Watergate, Iraq and the fallout from the Valerie Flame affair
.
I came away reminded that my view of the news business is not necessarily 20-20. And that I must express my dissatisfaction vigorously, but stop well short of scapegoating. (Too bad the political right won't follow suit.)
Oh, and also I was reminded (I knew this) that women are superior. This luncheon was, after all, sponsored and organized by the Albuquerque Press Women. Not the men.
The other day I noted how an AP reporter equated school grades with intellectual ability in a story about the Yale records of President Bush and Senator Kerry. I wondered if it was a mistake or intentional.
Today an Albuquerque Journal editorialist picks up on the story. Looking at the headline - "Surprise, Surprise: Two Average Students" - I thought the Journal was going to correct the error.
No such luck. In the body of the editorial, the Journal repeats the confusion in the original story before going on to make a point about political caricatures.
The editorial writer may be bright and intellectual, but he or she gets a D on the performance in question. Repeat after me, class - grades may or may not measure intelligence and may or may not have anything to do with intellectuality.
Last night I bumped into an old TV buddy who is a strong supporter of President Bush. He talked about network TV news in terms of liberal vs. conservative.
This morning, I watched part of Meet the Press, a roundtable in which Tim Russert solicited comments from Judy Woodruff, late of CNN; David Broder, the Washington Post syndicated columnist; Gwen Ifill of PBS and John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal. Pretty Establishment, I thought.
Not liberal or conservative, mind you, but Establishment. This was terribly obvious on in the discussion of Sen. Clinton’s appeal to the press to find some backbone.
These Establishment news people dismissed…yes, that’s the word…dismissed her appeal as political. Obviously political. Good thing, too, I thought, for if they had considered her charges seriously, they would have had to criticize themselves
Later I caught up with Frank Rich’s New York Times article on the press’s timidity in face of the Bush Administration’s lies, obfuscation and intimidation of news people and news agencies.
Rich and the Meet the Press crew were worldviews apart.
It's not that Russert is a bad interviewer – I think he's professionally superior, in fact – or that he’s right wing. What I see from watching him over the years is that he includes rightists on his panels – Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak, for example - but few or no left-wingers, just liberals of the Bill Richardson-Hillary Clinton –Joe Lieberman stripe. (Wonder if Russert has ever invited Frank Rich to the party?)
The Meet the Press folks also discussed Howard Dean’s leadership of the Democratic Party this morning with the usual Establishment wariness. Having watched Russert interview Dean more than once, I understand and feel for Russert.
Dean’s authenticity puts him off. And Russert is not alone in that discomfort.
That reminds me - I use the phrase "Establishment" because it’s closer to the mark than are "liberal" and "conservative," labels folks carelessly slap on everything.
But I am aware that "Establishment" - while reasonable - is far from a precise description of what's happened. Our news mediums have become unreal, like a special effects movie or a cartoon. They offer a product that resembles news, but isn’t. And their actors play at news, asking predictable questions and accepting canned answers.
Howard Dean can be impossible, but he is real. And the discomfort he produces with the "Meet the Press" crowd reminds me that their brand of journalism is ...well, not.
Are reporters stupid or do they think we are?
Today’s Albuquerque Journal carries an Associated Press story out of Boston which tells us that "Sen. John F. Kerry’s grade average at Yale University was virtually identical to President Bush’s record there, despite repeated portrayals of Kerry as the more intellectual candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign."
Grades equal intellectualism?
I suspect – though I don’t know - that the reporter knew better than to identify the two but could not resist the joy of oversimplification. The simpletons out there will get a kick out of this, he or she thought.
But the editors?
It’s a puzzlement.
I don't pay much attention to cartoons, but today's Trever comment in the Albuquerque Journal grabbed me.
In the first panel, a Press hat-wearing reader is holding a newspaper headlined "Watergate Source Revealed." He's thinking about the press digging and uncovering and exposing in order to serve the public interest.
In the second panel, that Press hat-wearing reader sits in a toilet. That toilet is made up of "infotainment" and "low ratings" and "advocacy" and fabrication" and "gotcha reporting" and "declining readership." and "bias." And he's thinking "Those were the days."
What impresses me is what Trever left out of the toilet - journalistic timidity.
Isn't that the press's esential charactistic today?
PS Nostalgia for Watergate - I feel some of it myself - is fine, but it would be a mistake to credit the press in general for uncovering the Nixon Administration's crimes. The press didn't do it, the Washington Post did. Most newspapers and TV networks missed the story or ducked it only to join the jubilant crowd when the Post, a gutsy judge and a few whistle-blowers made it safe for them to do so.
David Broder’s column on Watergate this morning includes quotations from Chuck Colson, who was special counsel to Nixon, and Pat Buchanan, a Nixon speechwriter. Both condemn Mark Felt, who revealed a week ago that he was Deep Throat. Neither condemn Nixon.
This reminds me that America’s historic temptation is right-wing authoritarianism or fascism.
Yes, there was one period, the Depression, when the global collapse of capitalism sent many intelligent folks dangerously leftward. They fell for "scientific socialism," a religion inspired by Karl Marx. This meant blinding themselves to Communism’s immense failure in the Soviet Union as well as its great crimes against humanity. But they remained on the fringes, failing to dominate official Washington, failing to persuade the general public.
On the other hand, American history offers several instances where anti-democratic rightists spoke for either the Establishment or much of the populace. In the 20th century alone, there were three such eras - World War I-Palmer Raid, McCarthyism and Watergate. We are now in a fourth, the 9/11-Patriot Act era.
This current tilt may be the most dangerous to democracy, because the White House, much of the Congress and a significant percentage of the citizenry – in its fear - support secrecy and lawlessness and subversion of the Constitution, thereby threatening the system.
As for the news business, it provided some check to Senator Joseph McCarthy and his fellow travelers. It was late but eventually caught onto the Watergate conspiracy. But these days, where it is not cheerleading, the mainstream press – daily newspapers and TV - has pretty much quit the field.
We are blessed with dissent in monthly magazines and books, it is true, but only a minority of Americans goes to monthlies and books for information.
Worrisome, given our nation's penchant for leaning to the authoritarian right.
Charles Colson went to jail for his Watergate crimes, then found God and has devoted his life ever since - creditably -to helping prisoners reform.
Last night, however, I heard Colson say that Mark Felt should have reported what he knew about the Watergate cover-up to his superior in the chain of command, not abet Woodward and Bernstein.
What a great reminder that our thinking about politics and civics and personal; responsibility rests on deeper structures within our brains, like hierarchy. Colson, it is clear, is not all that aware of what lies beneath his thinking.
Consider the likely consequences if Felt had reported what he knew to his boss, FBI Director C. Boyden Gray, Richard Nixon’s pawn.
Gray probably would have told his patron, who was the guy in charge of the original crimes and the cover-up.
Most of us, most of the time, assume hierarchy. No matter that obeying the dictates of the ladder can put us in opposition to truth, justice and the American Way.
So we fail to draw a horizontal line across our institutions. We say "military," as if there were not huge differences between the Generals and noncoms. The Church, ignoring the abyss between Bishops and parishioners. The corporation, as if the CEO and folks in the mail room shared interests and values and rewards and security.
Ignoring the fundamental construct of hierarchy makes it easier to think and think badly.
PS The Colson comment was positioned alongside excerpts from taped interviews with Bob Novak and G. Gordon Liddy on last night’s Daily Show on Comedy Central. This permitted Jon Stewart to note the quality of Felt’s critics – two criminals and a slimy news hack – and conclude that Felt did well.
Stewart and fellow conspirators continue to serve the public interest.