« What journalism is all about... | Main | : The polls they be achangin'... »

January 26, 2004

He said, she said...

This Associated Press article by Nedra Pickler illustrates the political potential that exists even in horse-race coverage of the election. And it points up for me how important it is for journalists to separate the idea of being custodians of facts from the fairness bias.

Howard Dean questions Sen. John Kerry's votes involving the the first Gulf War and the current war in Iraq. His rhetorical intent is to persuade voters that Kerry's thinking and actions are inconsistent with his campaign rhetoric. Dean says tit, Kerry says tat--and the reporter writes it down.

Because of the narrative bias, the reporter understands this contention as news (and it is such as it is).

As a caveat to my remarks, let me say that I'm aware that AP reporters work on tight deadlines and update their copy as the situation evolves. Unlike some luckier reporters, AP staffers often do not have the time to deepen their articles with background reporting.

While this article has a certain amount of political utility (caused, I would argue, by the importance of the issue), it would be much better if, as a matter of routine, the reporter fact-checked the sources. In this case, an important assertion that needs checking is this:

Kerry has contended his positions were consistent, saying the vote in 2002 authorized President Bush to threaten force rather than act unilaterally. He argued that his vote in 1991 was not against using force to oust Iraq from Kuwait.

Okay, but this is hearsay. What exactly has Kerry said? Does it conform to the facts (i.e. the public record)? In light of the public record, is Dean's charge fair?

Am I asking this reporter to offer something other than an objective accounting of the day's news? Certainly not, if we understand objectivity as a process. Part of that process should be fact-checking beyond the routine checking reporters always do (e.g. names spelled correctly). How are we to understand Dean's contention without background? How are we to understand Kerry's counter-contentions? Are we really supposed to understand this situation in terms of he-said she-said?

UPDATE (12:15 P.m.): This article by Ceci Connolly in the Washington Post is better, but not much. She quotes Kerry more extensively and offers some background. But she doesn't answer all the questions I ask above, specifically: In light of the public record, is Dean's charge fair? Such answers would greatly increase the political utility of the article.

Posted by acline at January 26, 2004 11:47 AM | | Spotlight