KEEPING POLITICIANS HONEST: After the 1988 election, journalists promised themselves that they would no longer, in the name of “objectivity,” allow candidates to get away with blatant falsehoods. Speeches and commercials were to be scrutinized for accuracy, with reporters serving as referees who would blow the whistle when politicians crossed the line between campaign rhetoric and lies.
One reporter who seems to be doing a good job at this is Andrew Rosenthal of the New York Times. Covering President Bush, he has not hesitated to point out the candidate’s bogus claims. After Bush promised disabled veterans that he would veto congressional attempts to dismantle the V.A. (8/10), Rosenthal noted, “Neither Mr. Clinton nor congressional Democrats have suggested dismantling the veterans’ healthcare system.” Rosenthal didn’t let a Bush surrogate get away with an inaccurate smear (8/4): “Accusing Mr. Clinton of advocating socialized medicine–although he does not–Kevin Moley, Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, called elements of the Clinton plan….”
One of the best instances of this approach was Rosenthal’s reporting (8/7) on Bush’s claim that Clinton “unabashedly proposes the largest tax increase in American history, at least $150 billion over four years.” Rosenthal explained at some length how the net tax increase proposed by Clinton was actually $92 billion–smaller than Reagan’s $214 billion 1982 hike or Bush’s own hike of $137 billion in 1990.
One can get carried away with this technique, as when Rosenthal followed Bush’s reference to Arkansas as being between Texas and Oklahoma with the clarification that “the only thing between Texas and Oklahoma. . . is the Red River and a few sandbars.” But the immediate correction of political distortions is a crucial duty for the media in an election year. Rosenthal’s annotations of Bush’s statements may not win him the best seat on the press plane, but he deserves to be supported–and emulated–by journalists following both campaigns. (Several journalists quickly exposed false claims from the Republican convention podium: Reagan’s phony Lincoln quotes, Buchanan’s tall tale about Army troops defending an old folks’ home, Kemp’s “years-long” welfare recipient who wasn’t.)
REFEREE FUMBLES: Refereeing is a role that many journalists feel uncomfortable with; it’s safer to fall back on the “on the one hand…on the other hand” format. If you don’t have the courage to reach conclusions, it’s best not to get started in the accuracy-evaluation business.
Two examples of dubious attempts to help readers decide between conflicting claims: Newsday on August 18 had a chart labeled “Attack, Counterattack” that featured the “Republican Charge,” the “Clinton Response” and an “Assessment.” But the assessments included such unhelpful summaries as “Both sides have studies that they claim prove their point” and “The numbers cited by both sides are suspect.”
A worse failure was the New York Times’ attempt to play the advertising critic game (8/19). Analyzing Clinton’s “Those are the facts. Back to the show” ads, Richard Berke used most of the space under the heading “Accuracy” for Bush campaign rebuttals of the ads–with no evaluation of whether the rebuttals hold water. For instance: “The Bush forces also contended that Arkansas tax revenue is low only because Arkansas citizens have been kept so poor under Bill Clinton.” End of discussion.
Not only does that have little to do with whether the Clinton ad was accurate (the spot pointed out that “Arkansas has the second-lowest tax burden in the country”), but in itself it’s a farfetched argument. Michael Kinsley in the New Republic (8/31), who does a good job of factchecking Bush’s claim about Clinton’s “128 tax hikes,” points out that if you measure taxes as a share of personal income, Arkansas ranks 47th.
BLURRING THE LINES: In a news article examining the blurring of the lines between journalists and politicians (8/19), a New York Times news article quoted the right-wing Media Research Center’s claim that it had found “17 reporters or executives covering or overseeing coverage [of the Republican convention] who used to work for Democratic politicians, but only five who once worked for Republicans.”
These figures are derived from the group’s “Revolving Door” project, which purports to list the political history of every journalist its researchers could think of, both Democratic and Republican, in an effort to show that the media is dominated by liberals.
The “revolving door” between politics and media is a serious problem (not to mention between politics and media watchers–the Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell served as Buchanan’s top fundraiser in his recent presidential bid). But a glance at the version of the project published in the Center’s book, And That’s the Way It Isn’t, shows that the Center has much more difficulty finding Republicans than Democrats. The “study” managed to miss, for example, such omnipresent media Republicans as John McLaughlin and Kevin Phillips.
The best example of the Center’s tunnel vision is columnist Mona Charen, who you won’t find in the book’s list of Republicans and conservatives. But if you close the book and turn to the back cover, there she is: The “syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for President Reagan” is the top endorser of the book, which she says “settles once and for all the question of media bias in America.”
Editor: Jim Naureckas
Associate Editor: Jeff Cohen
FAIR/Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting:
130 W. 25th St., New York, NY 10001
Phone: 212-633-6700 Fax: 212-727-7668
