Oct. 7, 2011 — There’s a new bureau chief (David Leonhardt) at the Washington Bureau of The New York Times, so we are hoping that the problems we identified in the spring and summer won’t recur.
We had first noticed the practice of having reporter opinions and assumptions neatly tucked into a story as though they were facts, but then starting coming across other problems: refusing to characterize something directly for fear of being seen as “taking sides” and presenting false equivalences, for example. There were also some classic he-said, she-said pieces and tactic-obsessed stories — both types reported without regard to truth value, morality, or legality. There are also numerous examples of what might be described as miscellaneous “centrism-philia.”
Finally, there was a category we described as holding back information during a debate because it doesn’t fit the chosen narrative.
This season, we couldn’t help but notice (see below) a remarkably tactic-obsessed story. (On the other hand, it’s clear that the Bureau’s reporters do know how to assess the truth content of the statements of various politicians.) We’ll see what the rest of the fall brings.
Updated Oct. 12, 2011 with example of story concerned about truth value of politican statements.
The subordinate clause is that the surtax would pay for job-creating measures, but the main point is that the proposal is simply a political maneuver.
This paragraph makes the reporter’s take even more explicit: the purposes are tactical, not substantive.
The assumption is that if one sees intractable opposition, the only reason that one proposes something is for cheap political gain. It seems not to occur to the reporter that there might be a responsibility to put forward the proposal that one thinks makes substantive sense (just as Republicans put forward budget cutting proposals that they think make substantive sense), and the fact that a political impasse occurs might be precisely what is supposed to happen so that voters can make choices between competing visions.
“Some support” is a curious phrase (a strong majority would be more apt). But saying this directly — that much of the public finds this type of proposal entirely reasonable — doesn’t jive with the theme that the proposal is unrealistic and is just being used for partisan political ends.
Here, the reporter — who is experienced and knowledgable — presents some actual facts that would seem to have a bearing on whether the proposal would, as a substantive matter, perhaps make some sense. The facts cry out to be posed to politicians in competing camps, but the story never does that.
Back to tactics, and an opportunity to probe is lost.