| I had a conversation recently with news director of an area radio station. I told them the biggest problem I had with political coverage by traditional media is it's completely driven by politicians themselves--news is defined by office holder press releases. The newsperson agreed, but defended the practice by saying they "removed all the adjectives" to cover the press release as straight news.
I readily acknowledged that this sad state of affairs is driven in part by reduced news room budgets compared to 10 or 20 years ago. The newsperson said, indeed, they rely on wire services (Associated Press, in their case) for investigative pieces.
Here's the problem.
Selectively reproducing press releases after "removing the adjectives" may answer the basic questions: who?, what?, when?, where? and how? but it's still stenography.
It leaves unanswered the most important question of all: why? Even worse, without additional reporting--the extra step of drawing in additional sources--it unfailingly accepts the rationale of a single source--that in the press releases--for why.
An Example
Here's an example in action from a story from The Journal in Martinsburg, West Virginia.
Capito releases list of earmark requests by Lauren Hough
"A list of 36 requests for federal earmarks were submitted and released by U.S. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va. on Wednesday, making it the first time the fourth-term congresswoman has made the list of requests available to the public.
Capito said she made the decision out of a desire for increasing transparency and accountability in earmarking.
The first paragraph covers the who, what, when. The second paragraph parrots the single source rationale for why. This is stenography in action.
Why did Capito release a list of earmarks?
In this case, the reader is fortunate enough to have the answer buried in the article itself. But, it's buried in single-source spin. And, if the reporter couldn't make the connection, will readers be smart enough to do it themselves?
While serving on the Rules Committee last year, Capito worked with congressional leaders to implement earmark reforms that required public disclosure of all requests on appropriations bills, and allowed debate and a vote on any earmark request. This year, House Democrats decided to restore those reforms.
Did you make the connection? It's really buried there, isn't it?
The News, Not Stenography
Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito released a list of earmarks because House rules require disclosure of earmarks. She wanted to avoid the embarrassment of someone else (like this blog, the DCCC, or a candidate running against her) releasing information about her earmarks in a less flattering manner. The Journal uncritically reproduced her positive framing of the issue.
Next question... why has Capito made these requests? What connections does she have to the people and companies that would benefit from these earmarks? How many of the companies lobbying for government handouts have given money to Capito's campaign?
The Martinsburg Journal is too busy promoting Capito's re-election to ask any of their own why questions, much less these tough ones. |
