Monthly Archives: April 2010

Comparisons of Protest Coverage

Date: April 30, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Protests, Washington Post

Dateline: April 20, written by two Washington Post reporters and assisted by two more.

The protest by hundreds of gun-rights advocates [emphasis added], billed as a national march in support of the Second Amendment, drew small but fervent groups to the Washington area. As many as 2,000 people gathered in the shadow of the Washington Monument, and about 50 at Gravelly Point and Fort Hunt parks in Virginia.

Total number of words: a little more than 500.  As I recall, the story—in print—also had prominent placement on the Metro front page or maybe it was on A1, but it definitely had a large photo accompanying the story, which as any editor would tell you, draws more readers to the story.  The photo was of the 50 folks at Gravelly Point.  Online the story includes a video and 18 still photos.

In today’s Post, there is a story about protests against Wall Street, organized by labor, community and progressive religious groups and the NAACP, most likely to be the political opposite of the gun-lovers:

Thousands of union workers, students and unemployed New Yorkers [emphasis added] angry over high unemployment, reckless financial industry practices and billion-dollar bailouts gathered Thursday to march in the financial district in Lower Manhattan, one of a series of rallies organized by a coalition of labor and community groups.

Online, the story, which was written by only one reporter, is nearly 600 words.  But in the print edition of The Post today, it was less than half that and buried on page A16.  No photo and no video or photos online.  Other reports said there were “several thousand” protestors.  Another said there were as many as 7,500.

Would anyone care to explain to me why the different emphasis in coverage by The Post?  Why does a protest that attracts 50 people draw on the resources of four reporters and earn a photo and prominent placement while another that draws 150 times that is virtually ignored?

Katharine Graham Had It Right

Date: April 30, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: David Ignatius, Mainstream Media, Objectivity vs. Balance, Washington Post

From a great piece by David Ignatius due to be published in Sunday’s Washington Post.

Our late Post publisher Katharine Graham once chided some of us, "Just because you are getting attacked from both the left and right doesn’t mean you’re doing a good job." She was right, but it’s still a useful index.

I agree…until the “useful index” part.  No it’s not.  If the MSM were willing to call a lie a lie, they may have a chance to regain relevance.  Having both sides criticize you assumes most comments by both sides are informed.

Don’t be misled by the lede.  This article is more than about war correspondents and worth the time to read from a writer I greatly respect.

The Press Honeymoon with Obama is Over

Date: April 29, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Cable News, Mainstream Media, NY Times, Political Labels, Politico, President Obama, Washington Post

Politico yesterday, in one of the longest articles I’ve seen there, lays out the media criticisms of the Obama administration.  Their complaints range from lack of access and favoritism to calls not returned and obsessive control of the message.  The bottom line, as is expressly feared in the article, is that the Fourth Estate comes off whiny.  Worse, it may be they have only itself to blame.

In the piece, writers Josh Gerstein and Patrick Gavin chronicle the widespread complaint among reporters that the Obama White House controls the message by going over the media’s heads with videos and other forms of messaging that aren’t filtered by journalists. 

One current focus of press corps ire are gauzy video features the White House’s staff videographer cranks out, taking advantage of behind-the-scenes access to Obama and his aides, such as a recent piece offering “exclusive footage” of first lady Michelle Obama and Jill Biden touring Haiti.

“I think someone out there might mistake them for news, as opposed to slick publicity handouts for the White House,” said Compton. “To me, they’re mocking what we do.”

So they’re complaining about not having access to softball tours of the first lady and Mrs. Biden?  Even so, who can blame the administration?  Any organization wants to control the message.  It’s the reporters job to find the real news, not wait for the White House to hand them it.

Reporters perceive the administration favors the New York Times, whose editorial page clearly supports most of Obama’s agenda. 

“It’s clearly the case that they’re playing favorites,” said Bloomberg’s Chen, when asked about the White House’s relationship to the Times. "It’s kind of par for the course. Some people understand that — none of us really like it — but that’s the way the administration does business."

But why didn’t those same reporters complain when the Bush folks often used interviews on FOX News, sure to be solicitous, to its advantage?

Gibbs denied an “unnecessary advantage” to the Times, while saying it has far more reporters covering topics of interest to the White House than most outlets. Times Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Dick Stevenson said it would be “absurd” to suggest the Times doesn’t get access in certain instances that others don’t.

“[F]ar more reporters covering topics of interest” is a key phrase.  Not that I think it is the real reason, but it may be a subtle jab to news organizations that give undue emphasis on process rather than substance.  Let’s face it.  The Times, The Washington Post and a few other newspapers drive the public policy conversation.  Television network news operations, cable talk shows and most newspapers around the country do little original reporting on national issues and instead follow the leads or run syndicated articles, often from the Times or Post.  And those stories are often about process, not policy.

Most interesting to me is the pushback from the White House when stories are not favorable.  Press secretary Robert Gibbs and his staff even complain over a word or phrase.  Gibbs defends his aggressiveness, even over the smallest thing, because lies take on a life of their own and are hard to kill, as Brendan Nyhan has described.  Gibbs pushes back in the Politico article.

“The way we live these days, something that’s wrong can whip around and become part of the conventional wisdom in only a matter of moments, and it’s hard to take it, put a top on it and put in back into the box,” Gibbs said. “That’s the nature by which the business operates right now. … This isn’t unique in terms of us, and it’s likely to be more true for the next administration.”

Asked about some of the more aggressive tactics, including complaints to editors, Gibbs said, “We have to do some of those things. … I certainly believe anyone who goes to an editor does so because it’s something they feel is very egregious. I don’t think people do it very lightly.”

Some reporters say the pushback is so aggressive that it undermines the credibility of Obama’s aides. “The willingness to argue that credible information is untrue is at its core dishonest and unfortunately calls into question everything else the press office says,” one White House reporter said.

How much to push back one should exert is a question that has been discussed on public relations forums on LinkedIn.  Some, myself included, believe in strong pushback, not only on political issues but also for corporate clients.  If a story about a company or its product, services and standing in the industry is unfair, some PR practitioners think pushback is counterproductive and will result in even tougher coverage from reporters.  Maybe.  Clearly, unhappy reporters may have a hair trigger.

“They ain’t seen nothing yet,” the longtime ABC reporter [Ann Compton] said. “Wait till they have to start really circling the wagons when someone in the administration is under attack, wait till there’s a scandal, wait till someone screws up, then it’ll get hostile.”

There are two other important questions not raised in the article.  The first is, has the press marginalized itself because of its focus on conflict and partisanship?  In the comments section of this article Tom Genin writes,

Seeing as the president wins on campaigning and loses on policy with the American people as a whole, there’s no reason or upside for him to get into the minutiae of policy with a reporter.

Oh, were that policy minutiae be what the press wants to get into.  Actual policies, their possible impact or the experience of other countries that may have employed them are rarely the subject of articles generated by the White House press corps.  Frequently, all they are reporting is the spin.  Too often, the WH press corps write stories that outline the administration’s point of view, counter opinions from members of the other parties and frequently include quotes from organizations that are usually described as “liberal” or “conservative,” sending a signal to readers of both camps about whether they should believe their point of view.  Once a conservative sees “liberal” describing an organization, they are likely to dismiss the quote as partisan BS—and vice versa.  It has gotten to the point where any partisan can make any claim and it largely goes unexamined by the press, until it has gained a viral constituency that will believe it no matter how the press later refutes it. 

Writing or saying, “but that’s not true,” after a false claim is rarely done by today’s journalists.  Thus, if readers can expect only tit-for-tat reports, why read them?  If the news consumer can’t find needed information in a story, why waste the time?  In fact, I am struck by how much more useful information I find in columns,which are usually designed to have a point of view.  That’s where the fact checking often goes on, as well as sites such as PolitiFact.com.  Wasn’t there a time when a reporter, sent information he knew to be not true, wouldn’t publish it?

University of Maryland law professor Sherrilyn Ifill thinks the press can only blame itself.

Is this the same White House press corps that was too cowed to ask a follow-up question of George W. Bush for e
ight years? The press corps that had so abandoned its professional obligation to press the president for the truth that anyone who could raise their hand and throw a soft lob at the president could pose as a member of the corps (remember some-time male escort’s Jeff Gucker Gannon stint as member of the corps?). The same press corps that gave away the critical role of the war correspondent in the first Gulf War under George H.W. Bush (with Cheney as Defense secretary) and accepted instead the "organized tour" for reporters, and then under George W. Bush (this time with Rumsfeld at Defense) the "embedded reporter" control on war reporting? The corps that spent two years questioning President Clinton about a certain intern, rather than about the rising threat of extremist terrorism in the Middle East? 

If the Obama administration is taking a firm hand with the White House press corps, then perhaps its time for the corps to engage in a little "truth and reconciliation" about its past failures to vigorously engage the president on the issues most important to the American people. Otherwise it’s hard to work up sympathy for a group of reporters that have participated in their own marginalization.

Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research agrees.

The job of the White House press corps is to reporting [sic] on issues that matter to the American people, not what President Obama had for breakfast. There is nothing that the Obama administration has done that prevents the press corp [sic] from analyzing proposals for health care reform, financial regulation, plans for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or doing any other part of the job. It seems that the press is upset because he is forcing them to be real journalists instead of gossip columnists. Too bad.

Which brings me to the second question:  Has the White House press corps outlived its usefulness?  Donald Johnson, a blogger at Businessword, authors this view in the comment section of the Politico article:

If the W.H. press corps wants to make itself as important as it thinks it is, it should do original reporting and go around the W.H. Meanwhile, why do news organizations waste time and money on staffing the W.H.? There is no there there.

At the very least, should news organizations invest in keeping reporters holed up in the White House waiting for the latest morsel from the administration?  Are reporters serving any useful purpose asking the chief mouthpiece of the administration to explain and defend its position, if they are not going to put that information under a microscope to ascertain its validity?  Certainly, a select, rotating pool of reporters could ask such questions while the others are spending more time examining the issues. 

Finally, I am not defending the Obama White House withholding critical public information the public has a right to know.  But this article isn’t about that.  It’s about the press wanting special access.  Take the information coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., critically analyze it, confirm it if you can, find the holes in it if they’re there, get the views of others and not just the political establishment and report it.

And stop whining.

As I, uh, was, uh, saying

Date: April 19, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Democrats, GOP message, Message Delivery

Sunday’s Washington Post front page had an article about Charlie Crist’s troubles in his GOP primary for the Senate race there.  In it was a lesson for all candidates—or for that matter anyone in any arena who wants to be taken seriously.

But there were plenty of onlookers like Bob Gammon, who, as he sipped his beer, tried to put his frustration with Crist into words. "He’s like a lot of weak Republicans now," said Gammon. "He’s like the great compromiser: He doesn’t stand strong; he doesn’t talk with authority. . . . And then I hear good ol’ what’s-his-name, Rubio, and he has no uh-uh-uhs when he talks. He talks with authority. Rubio is going to win easy. Crist’s kind of Republican is over. Crist can’t even take a stand."

Not taking a stand in politics, though important, is not what I’m talking about.  It’s the “he doesn’t talk with authority. . . . And then I hear good ol’ what’s-his-name, Rubio, and he has no uh-uh-uhs when he talks. He talks with authority.

People who talk with authority, who avoid “uh,” “you know” and the now ubiquitous “it’s like,” I think are more credible, especially in politics.  Obama has a lot of ‘uhs” in his extemporaneous speaking.  I think it’s one of the reasons some people don’t trust him.  He sounds as if he’s trying to parse his words so carefully one wonders if he’s trying to pull something over on the listener.

Republicans are much better at such speaking.  For the life of me I don’t know why, although I’m sure many GOP supporters would say it’s because they have confidence in what they’re saying.  Why don’t Democrats?  Maybe it’s because being liberals, they’re always afraid of offending someone.  I’ve noticed this phenomenon on the cable talk shows.  The next time I see such a segment I’ll post it. Take a listen yourself and tell me if you don’t hear what I’m talking about.

Meanwhile, I think Bob Gammon, a voter in Florida, hit on a universal truth.  If you sound hesitant, you sound unsure of yourself.  If you are using a lot of “uhs” people are less likely to believe you or be inspired by you.

GOP Bait and Switch

Date: April 15, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: GOP Hypocrites, GOP message, Income Equality, Taxes

Just a brief addendum to my post the other day about the disingenuous lie that 47% pay no income tax.  As Derek Thompson of The Atlantic points out, poor people owe taxes, but they are offset by the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

When Republicans rail against the 47% figure, they’re railing against features like the EITC. What is the EITC? It’s a refundable tax credit that rewards work and offsets the burden of payroll taxes for low-income payers by returning a fixed percent of income up to a maximum credit based on factors like number of children. But the EITC is a Republican creation. It was enacted in 1975 under President Ford (a Republican), and expanded numerous times over the last 35 years by Republicans. President Reagan (Republican) expanded it in 1984 and 1986. President Bush (Republican) expanded it against in 1990 and added supplemental credit for families with more than one child. President Clinton expanded it for childless claimants in 1993. President Bush (Republican) expanded it again in 2001.

So what we have is a program developed by Republicans to encourage welfare recipients to work instead.  When it succeeds, the GOP then pivots in its arguments and claims these very same people are cheating the government and are prime examples of “socialism.”  If it weren’t so cynical, it would be brilliant.

Talking About Taxes

Date: April 14, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Democrats, Message, Taxes, Transportation

Last night, I attended a wrap-up forum from our local state legislators. All six were Democrats. Generally, they were fairly informative. With the Q&A period afterwards, I would say that they all handled themselves well but with a big asterisk.

Sen. Chap Petersen’s overview of the budget process was frank: He, along with all the others I believe, held their noses when voting for the budget. He noted that withholding payments for the Virginia Retirement System to balance the budget could come back to haunt us when we must replenish the VRS with interest. Future employees will also find a less generous retirement system. One legislator was a little too self-congratulatory when claiming legislators saved education funding. They used this VRS budget gimmick.

In defending the budget, Petersen said the only alternative was massive cuts. That of course is not true. Another alternative is to raise taxes. There is where I place an asterisk.

We finally got around to taxes when I asked the legislators if they would support a gas tax to increase to transportation funds. While no one’s hand shot up, several said they had supported past attempts to raise transportation funding that included tax increases. Talking with one legislator after the meeting, he said that he and others had taken political risks in voting for those tax increases.

He has a fair point, one that I don’t readily concede when talking about my frustration with Democrats over the tax issue. The problem as I see is that they don’t know how to talk about taxes.

The first problem is a lack of trust that voters can digest a sensible discussion about taxes. They fear any dialogue can be parsed into a 30-second commercial against them. If that’s all they hear about taxes, they probably have a justified concern.

The solution is not to back away from the discussion but to expand it, much as Gov. Mark Warner did and Gov. Tim Kaine tried with much less determination.

One excuse I heard last night is that that discussion really is the governor’s domain. I disagree. If the Democratic Party in Virginia had a disciplined plan to engage voters, it could claim and dominate the discussion.

It’s also a problem of numbers. The numbers thrown around last night were big ones. Our transportation needs require $1.6 billion more dollars per year. The budget shortfall was $2 billion. Even after cuts to education, social services and public safety, several hundred million more in cuts were needed—and found through the VRS gimmick. All very big numbers.

A couple of weeks ago I attended two forums held by my local supervisor, a Republican with the usual antipathy toward taxes. But both groups of citizens, when asked, were willing to hike real estate taxes at least 8 cents to minimize proposed cuts to education, libraries, the police, etc.

The reason, I believe, is because they dealt with a much smaller number—the amount they would pay in increased taxes.

When framed that way, the dynamics change. We do need $1.6 billion in more transportation dollars. What that comes out to for the average driver is $192 dollars a year.  (see footnote) I believe an argument framed that way would find a more receptive audience. When the discussions were waning in our local supervisor’s budget meetings, people knew that an 8-cent increase would raise an additional $144 million in revenues and, along with other tax increases, would cost them an average of $244. They readily agreed to pay—not $144 million in the aggregate, but $244 each.

Politicians need to break down big numbers, which are incomprehensible to us, to ones we can embrace. How much will it cost me? I urge them in the next citizen forum they attend to ask people what they think it would cost them each to pay for a first-class transportation system. I’ll bet it’s more than $192 more a year. (And that figure will drop as we catch up on the backlog of projects.)

They also need to tell us what more taxes buy us. Not once last night did legislators outline what $1.6 billion a year buys. Granted, this wasn’t a forum on transportation, but any discussion about transportation revenues should always make reference to the exact benefits. In our district, more funds might mean traffic amelioration around George Mason University, which with its growth is creating gridlock in the area. It might mean mass transit alternatives that will unclog Braddock Road during rush hours. When talking about gas taxes in southern Virginia, the Coalfields Expressway might be invoked. In Hampton Roads, there are bridge and tunnel projects that are sorely needed. How would an additional $192 dollars in taxes impact the timetable for these projects?

Without this detailed discussion of benefits, voters will worry about a black hole for their tax dollars.

Lastly, the campaign for adequate state funds must be ongoing, coordinated and sustainable. But before that it must be carefully developed for prime time. We see what happens when it isn’t in Sen. Creigh Deeds’ buffoonish approach to taxes during the gubernatorial campaign. A successful campaign won’t be accomplished in a few weeks or during a typical Labor Day to Election Day General Assembly campaign. It needs to grow from small “coffees” to test messages, then on to larger forums to secure the sale.

Democrats have nothing to fear but fear itself. Then Gov. Mark Warner proved it could be done, although even that campaign was short on the small numbers people need. I concede I’ve been harsh with some Democrats, but it’s not their heart I question.  It’s their ability to communicate the need for more revenue and higher taxes to ensure our standards of living remain high. They must trust and try.

A Note: Del. Vivian Watts, a former Virginia Secretary of Transportation, made a floor speech knocking down objections to more funding. Page one is here; page 2 is here.

Footnote:  When writing this originally, I left out a needed explanation here:  The $192 figure is derived from the 32-cent increase in the gas tax required to raise $1.6 billion, based on a calculation of 15,000 miles per year driven by the average driver of a car averaging 25 miles per gallon.  I should have included this information in the original post.

The Rich Pay More Taxes Canard

Date: April 14, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Message, New York Times, Taxes

Monday I wrote that the latest figures showing 10 percent of the wealthiest Americans pay 73 percent of federal taxes was a canard meant to justify more tax cuts.  Today, David Leonhardt explains the details.  For liberals, it is an article that they should memorize, especially this:

There is no question that the wealthy pay a higher overall tax rate than any other group. That is an American tradition. But there is also no question that their tax rates have fallen more than any other group’s over the last three decades. The only reason they are paying more taxes than in the past is that their pretax incomes have risen so rapidly — which hardly seems a great rationale for a further tax cut.

The Withering White House Press Corps

Date: April 13, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: White House press corps

While The Washington Post article by Jason Horowitz is headlined “Obama spokesman Gibbs sounds eager for future strategist role,” there are other agendas being set here.  All in all, it’s a fun read, even with—or maybe because of—its slings and arrows.

But whatever the future role of Gibbs might be, he certainly doesn’t come off the worst.  That category goes to the press itself.

Listen to the press secretary talk about the media as a predictable, hyperventilating rabble obsessed with access [emphasis added] and covering "everything as make or break…."

But there are more than slings and arrows by Horowitz.  It’s really a damning portrait of the media, the White House press corps in particular.

Gibbs is tethered to a lectern that matters a lot less than it used to.

…In the Gibbs era of Obama message control, reporters in the briefing theater are slowly being reduced to a chorus complaining about access, or, worse, scenery in an anachronistic play. An hour or so before a 1:30 press briefing last month, reporters started staking out spots among the blue leather seats. The foreign reporters trickled in first, then the American print reporters, then the swaggering television reporters.

“Swaggering television reporters” were targeted for special mention, perhaps, but the point here is the White House press corps simply isn’t as important as it used to be.  And the Obama administration doesn’t care.

Unlike press secretaries past, who would make rounds of calls to reporters as they neared deadlines, Gibbs is notoriously tough to get on the phone…. This month, Gibbs neglected to tell reporters traveling back from Prague on Air Force One that Justice John Paul Stevens had announced his retirement and refused to talk to them when they found out. Last weekend, Obama broke longstanding tradition by giving the slip to a pool reporter. Later this month, representatives of various news organizations will meet with Gibbs to express what they feel is the administration’s contempt for the press.

The White House now turns to a suite of social-networking tools — YouTube, WhiteHouse.gov, Twitter — that mix innovation and evasion. The press office used to follow up blast announcements to Twitter followers with heads-up e-mails to reporters. No longer. On the morning of March 12, Gibbs broke major news in a Twitter message: "The President will delay leaving for Indonesia and Australia — will now leave Sunday — the First Lady and the girls will not be on the trip."

Of course, it is not the administration that will make them relevant.  That would be their product.  If any newsmaker knows that whatever the subject, “conflict, celebrity and currency,” the definition of news according to some, will be the angle, why not by-pass them?

Ironically, as the White House treats them as irrelevant, reporters are portrayed here as a Fourth Estate that seems ready to take anything—spin, lies, evasion—than to be left out of the equation.

There are a few things about Gibbs that irritate even the least excitable reporters in the briefing room, though none of them would speak for the record out of fear of retaliation.

If access is limited, the communications evasive and the press fears retaliation, why not simply leave the briefing room, enterprise a story, do it without White House input if it so chooses, and take your chances.  Instead, the White House reporters are taking it lying down as they close the coffin on themselves.