Friday, August 11, 2006
Letters to Barney
First in an ongoing series.
Re: "Terror Arrests Play In Political Arena", by Adam Nagourney, 8/11/06.
Dear Mr. Calame,
I am writing because I was, frankly, baffled by the way in which the above-referenced article was written. Clearly, the political effects of the British terror plot are an important subject. However, your reporter's article addressed that subject in a way that put aside independent, even-handed analysis in favor of repeating Republican spin. The article is biased in two ways: first, it places Republican talking points on the issue front and center, while burying the Democratic take; and second, it de-emphasizes objective analysis (for example of polling data) that contradicts the Republican line.
The emphasis of the Republican take in the article is clear from the beginning (indeed, in some cases from the headline: on the "today's paper" section of your website, the article is headlined " The Political Effects: Arrests Bolster G.O.P. Bid to Claim Security as Issue." In the article itself, no non-Republican voices are heard until the twelfth paragraph, more than halfway through the article. The article makes it clear that both Democrats and Republicans responded to the arrests; why is the Republican response so much more important that it deserves such clearly preferential placement in the article?
Furthermore, the article downplays the fact that the actual state of public opinion in the U.S. suggests that the terror arrests in England, and the issue of terrorism generally, are not unambiguously good issues for the Republican party. The last New York Times/CBS News poll showed a very narrow six-point gap between the parties on the issue of terrorism; both the most recent poll and the previous poll showed that gap at its narrowest point since the September 11th attacks. The Washington Post's six polls on the terrorism issue this year have shown the Democrats with an advantage three times. The article completely foregoes any discussion of public opinion on handling of terrorism, instead simply assuming that it is an issue favorable to Republicans. To the extent that it does discuss the possibility of a change in the politics of terrorism, it does so beginning in paragraph 16, clearly downplaying it relative to the Republican talking points that it undermines.
It is true, as the article says, that the Republicans have successfully portrayed Democrats as weak on terrorism in the past, but it is not clear why your reporter should so blithely assume that the past and the present are identical; furthermore, it is also not clear why your reporter should feel the need to help Republicans continue to make that portrayal.
Your readers rely on you to analyze politics in an incisive, independent way. We know that when politicians make statements about events, they tend to interpret these events in whatever way is most favorable to their political interests, even if that means straining the truth. So, we rely on the independent press to put their statements in context, to sift through the spin and tell us what is really happening. The article that I have discussed clearly failed to do this; I hope that you will work to make sure that your political reporters do a better job of serving their readers in the future.
Sincerely,
[FGT]
Re: "Terror Arrests Play In Political Arena", by Adam Nagourney, 8/11/06.
Dear Mr. Calame,
I am writing because I was, frankly, baffled by the way in which the above-referenced article was written. Clearly, the political effects of the British terror plot are an important subject. However, your reporter's article addressed that subject in a way that put aside independent, even-handed analysis in favor of repeating Republican spin. The article is biased in two ways: first, it places Republican talking points on the issue front and center, while burying the Democratic take; and second, it de-emphasizes objective analysis (for example of polling data) that contradicts the Republican line.
The emphasis of the Republican take in the article is clear from the beginning (indeed, in some cases from the headline: on the "today's paper" section of your website, the article is headlined " The Political Effects: Arrests Bolster G.O.P. Bid to Claim Security as Issue." In the article itself, no non-Republican voices are heard until the twelfth paragraph, more than halfway through the article. The article makes it clear that both Democrats and Republicans responded to the arrests; why is the Republican response so much more important that it deserves such clearly preferential placement in the article?
Furthermore, the article downplays the fact that the actual state of public opinion in the U.S. suggests that the terror arrests in England, and the issue of terrorism generally, are not unambiguously good issues for the Republican party. The last New York Times/CBS News poll showed a very narrow six-point gap between the parties on the issue of terrorism; both the most recent poll and the previous poll showed that gap at its narrowest point since the September 11th attacks. The Washington Post's six polls on the terrorism issue this year have shown the Democrats with an advantage three times. The article completely foregoes any discussion of public opinion on handling of terrorism, instead simply assuming that it is an issue favorable to Republicans. To the extent that it does discuss the possibility of a change in the politics of terrorism, it does so beginning in paragraph 16, clearly downplaying it relative to the Republican talking points that it undermines.
It is true, as the article says, that the Republicans have successfully portrayed Democrats as weak on terrorism in the past, but it is not clear why your reporter should so blithely assume that the past and the present are identical; furthermore, it is also not clear why your reporter should feel the need to help Republicans continue to make that portrayal.
Your readers rely on you to analyze politics in an incisive, independent way. We know that when politicians make statements about events, they tend to interpret these events in whatever way is most favorable to their political interests, even if that means straining the truth. So, we rely on the independent press to put their statements in context, to sift through the spin and tell us what is really happening. The article that I have discussed clearly failed to do this; I hope that you will work to make sure that your political reporters do a better job of serving their readers in the future.
Sincerely,
[FGT]
