September 17, 2003

AND THE HORSEFEATHERS’ HANDWRINGING AWARD GOES TO…THE NEW YORK TIMES…FOR ITS WAR COVERAGE

AND

FOR INVENTING NEWS THAT DOESN’T EXIST IT GETS THE WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST AWARD TO BOOT

Remember the infamous Hearst story about the Spanish-American War? In his race with Joseph Pulitzer for readership in New York City Hearst more or less invented yellow journalism. The apocryphal story goes that he hired the illustrator Frederick Remington to cover the war in Cuba and sent him down there in 1897. When he got there Remington telegraphed Hearst: “EVERYTHING QUIET STOP NO TROUBLE HERE STOP THERE WILL BE NO WAR STOP WISH TO RETURN STOP REMINGTON.” Whereupon Hearst fired back: “STAY PUT STOP YOU FURNISH PICTURES I’LL FURNISH WAR STOP HEARST.”

There was a time, many years ago, when the reputation of The New York Times meant something. It was “the paper of record,” the “good gray lady” of American journalism, the paper everyone could count on to deliver the news and the facts a little more in-depth than the local tabloid, and less freighted with political opinion in its reportage than the Hearst Press or Colonel McCormick’s Chicago Tribune. The Times was responsible enough in those days to keep its editorial opinion on the editorial page and its reporting factual and more or less free of bias.

Nowadays there is little difference between editorial comment and reportage. As in the days of yellow journalism, the Times can now be counted on to deliver the paper’s biases on any page and in any article. Its reporters and editors have political views which color their reporting and if necessary they will create the facts to support their views. A case in point appeared on September 15, 2003 with the headline “Across the U.S., Concern Grows About the Course of War in Iraq” by Adam Nagourney.

The story was placed on the front page, above the fold, a space reserved for stories of the most serious and important kind. In it Nagourney in a more nuanced form of creative journalism suggests that the people of America are not only “concerned” about the war in Iraq but discouraged, demoralized, and opposed to it.

The editors of the Times know that during a war—any war—the whole nation is and ought to be “concerned” with its vicissitudes, the safety of its soldiers, and its costs. They must know that there are times, in war, when things don’t go well—many times during the Civil War, World War I, and World War 2. They must know that Viet Nam is not the only model for war. And yet Nagourney and his editors create a scenario in which they suggest to the reader that things are going poorly in Iraq and the people of America can’t stand it for too much longer.

He created this story by telephoning around the country and finding seven classic hand-wringers to quote: Hele Spivack, Gary Sambrowski, Frank Jessoe, Paul McGill & wife Virginia, Betty Enfinger, Becky Bunting, and Mike Gallagher. Who these folks are and how Nagourney came to find them is left a mystery. But he extrapolates from their remarks that the rest of America is demoralized and ready to give up. Unless the reader scrutinizes the language of the article as carefully as it was crafted he or she will miss the subtle transformation of the word “concerned” to mean not just vitally interested, but discouraged and opposed. The innocent reader is thus taken on a rhetorical joyride. The author selects and quotes a group of people who are in reality defeatists but who are indentified by the author only as “concerned.” And since common sense suggests to the reader that most Americans are or should be concerned about the war, he may be left with the notion that most Americans have become defeatist and opposed to it.

In addition, he throws in the opinions of one or two Democratic presidential candidates who are opposed to the Administration’s handling of the war and a few “experts” who happen to be academics, a group well known for their antagonism toward any kind of aggression except against the President.

Nagourney acknowledges that even the most recent polls indicate that the majority of Americans are not opposed to the war and continue to support the President in its pursuit, but he chooses to make much of the fact that the poll shows some loss of support.

The article is consistent with hundreds of other articles in the Times which emphasize anything that suggests that the administration—especially the Pentagon, Cheney, and Bush—has made a bad decision or choice. It is remorseless in its coverage. Whatever is going well in this extremely complex undertaking is ignored altogether, or diminished.

When William Randolph Hearst invented news, he did it to beat his competition, the New York World. The publisher and editors of the Times have a more serious agenda. They really believe that they know what is right for America and are arrogant enough to try to make history rather than merely report it.