A possible trend in journalism and writing

I bet critical obituaries will grow more common. The most recent high-profile example is Salon's "Andrew Breitbart, 1969-2012". This trend--if it is one--I first noticed after Christopher Hitchens died. Yes, some figures, like Hitchens and Breitbart, are more likely to draw fire after death, but now everything is politics. So look out--after a celebrity or politician of any stripe dies, writers will rush to publish something harsh. Doing so, they imagine, is just setting the record straight. (Weird how that runs parallel to current journalism's rampant fairness bias--reporters giving equal weight to opposing views when one side's argument doesn't deserve it.)

A tale of two endings

The New York Times issued two death certificates today. The first was for soft and sterile Republican candidate Jon Huntsman. The article "Major Ad Blitz for Huntsman in New Hampshire, by Group Backed by His Father" maintains the narrative that candidate Jon Jr. is the son who can't escape the shadow of his rich, self-made father. The article says this explicitly:

Though Mr. Huntsman has clearly made his own name as the governor of Utah and, most recently, as the ambassador to China for President Obama, he has grown up in the long shadow of his father, one of the richest men in the country and an entrepreneur behind iconic items of Americana ...

And the supporting details from the article (parenthetical is mine):

Governor Huntsman made it clear early this year that he did not think he could be a viable presidential contender if he did not raise money on his own, telling reporters, “Unless you can raise it legitimately, you’re not going to win.”

As he has struggled to do so, his aides and supporters have placed increasing hope that Mr. Huntsman’s father would shovel enough money into (Jr.'s PAC) Our Destiny ...

Mr. Huntsman has been loath to ask his father to up his commitment to the outside group, several people familiar with the situation said. His father, on the other hand, they said, has been unwilling to do so without being asked, especially given the uncertainty of whether the investment would make a huge difference.

The Huntsman candidacy never had a chance, and The New York Times' insistence on this narrative only hurt.

The second death certificate is for the Occupy Wall Street movement--or, at least the occupation part. The article "Beyond Seizing Parks, New Paths to Influence" depicts the police raids and impending Winter as ruinous for the protestors encamped in parks across the nation. The article's sources now predict a shift in strategy from attention-getting to information sharing and political action. The New York Times has consistently been critical of the protestors and the movement, focusing on the perceived lack of a unifying message or list of demands and the nuisances caused to locals and businesses, but the paper has stayed pretty neutral about the politics. This article seems to argue that Occupy Wall Street succeeded in raising consciousness about the issues, if nothing else.

Change in Libya, change in media

Judging by changes in the tone and language of coverage, I sense the media is backing away from the Libyan rebels. When the tide of battle turned not long ago, the coverage was breathlessly supportive of their cause. But now the rebels have power and the remaining fight has only the Gadhafi manhunt and a few stalemates with Gadhafi loyalists in various municipalities. The waning enthusiasm in part flows naturally from the press tiring of the story line. But there's more to it: The rebels are no longer a single-cause fighting force. Now they are emerging as a diverse set of forces with different agendas and identities. This defies the simplistic narrative that most journalists need. For example: The rescue of trapped miners makes a good story. The miners dealing with the trauma, depression, and anxiety in the aftermath is a hard story. The former gets tons of coverage; the latter, little to none. Aside from the media's preference for simple narratives, they now see that the new Libyan leadership may turn out no better than Gadhafi, and this would reveal how truly uncritical the coverage of this conflict was.

NPR leaves us in the dark

The NPR story Conservatives Step Up Attacks On Public Funding For Birth Control takes the usual route, replaying Conservative and Liberal positions on funding birth control and the abortion issue, but then makes two sad attempts at shedding light on the debate. First attempt:

Abortion opponents are correct that widespread access to birth control hasn't eliminated abortions in the U.S. — although the number has declined considerably over the last two decades.

The author assumes that (1) eliminating abortion was the goal and that (2) such a thing is possible. Both assumptions are incorrect. Furthermore, the line could have been more honestly written as, "Birth control advocates are correct that the number of abortions performed has dropped dramatically due to widespread access to birth control".

The second attempt to shed light on this debate comes at the end of the piece:

Still, the question remains, why is it only now that objections to birth control are being raised in public? John Green, a political science professor who studies religion and politics at the University of Akron, says he thinks it has a lot to do with the recent battles over federal spending in general, and the new health law in particular.

The author doesn't pursue this theory to its end by asking why the budget battles even started under Obama. This is a reasonable question given the fact that (1) the US has run a budget deficit since Reagan held office 30 years ago and (2) the current Recession was not caused by Government Debt. She did not point out that budgets only become the big issue when a Democrat occupies the White House; the last threat at Government shutdown came under Clinton.

This is poor reporting. If the author was investigating a murder, she might ask "Why did the suspect kill the victim?" and receive the answer "Because the victim made him mad." Shouldn't she then ask, What did the victim do to make him mad?

Two bits

The Associated Press article "3 attacks target Israelis near Egypt, 6 dead" partially covers the recent attack in southern Israel. An Israeli official is quoted:

"The incident underscores the weak Egyptian hold on Sinai and the broadening of the activities of terrorists," Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in a statement. "The real source of the terror is in Gaza and we will act against them with full force and determination."

Then the AP writer shares this nugget:

Bedouins in Sinai cooperate with anti-Israel militants in Gaza, just across the border.

That's it. No context, no mention of occupation, no mention of violated UN resolutions. The highlight of the article is this curve ball conclusion:

The bus driver interviewed by Channel 2 did not provide details of the attack but appeared calm, smoking a cigarette in the driver's seat.

 One cool customer.

In the second of the two bits, the writer should have been more explicit in calling out the BS here and his title is a misdirect, but the LA Times article "New presidential bus attracts attention, criticism" deserves some credit for at least passively implying that this story was stupid and the criticisms trivial, uninformed, and hypocritical. The article states:

Republicans can't stop bringing up its cost, making the bus sound like a boondoggle. In the new age of austerity, a million-dollar bus is an irresistible target — especially because it was built in Canada rather than the U.S..."This is an outrage ..." Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said ... Other conservatives were snarkier ...

There's pettiness. Now the hypocrisy:

"The vehicle had to support the weight of security and communication equipment that we had," (Secret Service spokesman) Donovan said ... the Secret Service ordering a custom-built bus gave the agency "a level of security that we couldn't achieve by doing it the other way" ... President George W. Bush rode on a bus from the same Canadian manufacturer ... The Secret Service actually ordered two buses like the one Obama used this week. The other is for the eventual Republican presidential nominee.

Congratulations on buying the Robot Romney Corp 2012

In The New York Times article "‘Corporations Are People,’ Romney Tells Iowa Hecklers Angry Over His Tax Policy", the reporter quotes Romney tossing out a line about raising taxes which draws shouts of "Corporations!" from an audience member. Romney says corporations are people:

“Of course they are,” Mr. Romney said, chuckling slightly. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”

The reporter shares analysis:

It was a telling, unscripted moment for Mr. Romney likely to be replayed on YouTube. In an instant, he seemed to humanize himself by pointedly squabbling with the group of hecklers, showing flashes of anger and defying his reputation as a sometimes stilted, unfeeling candidate.

This "stilted, unfeeling" reputation comes from the media. They invented it, the Romney narrative, and they reinforce it. This slight break in that narrative amuses the reporter because he's so much a part of it he can't see that it is only a characterization, and that Romney actually is human.

Here's the article's highlight:

Thursday was Mr. Romney’s most fiery day on the trail this week, even before the hecklers, affiliated with Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, an organizing group, drew him into several aggressive exchanges. Mr. Romney took the stage with sweat already glistening on his brow and upper lip. The sweat trickled down his cheek as he worked himself into animated rhythm in a 10-minute speech that criticized President Obama.

Worked himself into animated rhythm? Did he oil his machine parts? Maybe get Dorothy and Scarecrow to lock arms for song?

By drawing attention to this supposed anomaly, the article reinforces and emphasizes the prevailing narrative that media generated. The exception seems to prove the rule. This is a much smaller version than the time Hillary Clinton got weepy toward the conclusion of the Democratic Primary in 2008.

The other narratives include Huntsman attempting to stand on his own two legs and Bachmann trying not to act psycho.

A riot

The rioting in Britain that started over the weekend escalated to a problem when it spilled out of the poor neighborhoods and grew into a crisis when Cameron et al. had to cut vacations short to board a plane home. The Media is asking, Why so angry and violent? Their answers include:

• The fatal shooting by police of a 29-year-old local resident
• Unemployment
• Austerity measures
• Insensitive policing
• Opportunism / bad parenting / lack of values

The interesting story here is not the language we use to describe the poor man's depravity; it's the descriptions we are given of the depravity of the elite: When the poor and marginalized capitalize on opportunities to the detriment of society, they are called immoral, vile, despicable criminals bereft of values and they are jailed. When investors and bankers capitalize on opportunities to the detriment of society, they are called irresponsible and then get bailed out.

Edited how

James O'Keefe's videotaped investigation of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) circulated in mainstream media and ultimately lead to the government defunding the organization. O'Keefe, now the author of several such pieces, sees himself as embattled and his work undercut by an elite media class too ignorant or dishonest to recognize their own liberal bias. The primary criticism of his work claims that he selectively edits his videos to serve an agenda, ultimately misrepresenting the facts. But he fires back, pointing out that all media is edited; no story runs in The New York Times and no tape rolls on CNN without having been cut to highlight the action, to fit the time allotted, and to hold our interest.

I imagine a Times editor arguing that, in the paper, he edits for clarity, consistency, readability--qualities that serve not to obscure or spin but, rather, to make the facts more accessible, to make them clear. But clarity of narrative is itself a fiction, and order largely an invention of the mind. O'Keefe has a point.

He is currently profiled in The New York Times piece "Stinger: James O'Keefe's Greatest Hits", a well-written, brief and dispassionate study of the young advocate journalist. Its author, Zev Chafets, closes with this question about O'Keefe's investigations:

Had the videos revealed a larger injustice, O’Keefe’s stated goal? Had they demonstrated waste and abuse in Great Society initiatives run amok, or were they simply exposing the failures of some well-meaning, low-level bureaucrats in a basically worthy government program? It depends on your perspective. As for James O’Keefe, he is already looking for the next target.

An interesting and ironic conclusion. The larger, unspoken theme to this story is advocacy in journalism. Media criticism today takes aim at mainstream journalists' unwillingness or inability to call out bullshit where it exists; O'Keefe himself has echoed Liberal media critics by calling journalists "stenographers". Yet, in the very face of that criticism, Chafets casually poses here two charges, detonating neither, leaving readers perhaps less certain of where, how, and if a guy like O'Keefe fits in the fractured snow globe of our doomed national politics.

Few people doubt that at times we need journalism that aims to get the facts straight, nothing more, nothing less. But at these times, in cases like this, we need a journalism that does what O'Keefe says he does: Speak truth to Power. No journalist covering O'Keefe should have to ask himself if advocates for the poor constitute Power. If he does, I might ask myself, Is Chafets stupid or just a coward?