Scribe, examine your biases

The Independent’s first-hand coverage of the Democratic Convention reminds me that politics is, at bottom, about people. As when I read that Bill Richardson believes Hillary Clinton has forgiven his Obamian apostasy but her husband hasn’t. At home, watching the show on the Tube, I got the same message – the first two days of Democratic oratory emphasized human stories, not issues. But since I learn here in Albuquerque from the delivered newspaper, magazines, the New York Times and NMI via computer plus TV and cable networks, I am reminded, too, that our news mediums shape what they convey. A few cases in point:

o Dean Reynolds, the CBS correspondent following Obama, reported the candidate’s choice of Joe Biden as running mate. In his tag, he wondered if Biden’s long experience might not make some wonder why he’s not at the top of the ticket. Duh! He’s not at the top, Dean, because primary voters rejected him.

o Time Magazine (September 1) said Obama favors a single-payer health system. I wish that were so, but Obama proposes taking other roads to universal coverage.

o To bolster its convention reporting, CBS is employing two political professionals – Joe Trippi, veteran of Howard Dean’s Presidential campaign, and Dan Bartlit, former George W. Bush adviser. The use by news organizations of partisans to complement their own efforts, once rare, is standard practice now. I’m not sure this journalistic outsourcing serves the public.

o The Associated Press has been a great resource forever – solid, cautious, trustworthy. That’s why AP correspondent Ron Fournier’s "analysis" headlined "Biden Is the Ultimate Insider" (Albuquerque Journal, August 24) surprised me. Fournier wrote, "The candidate of change went with the status quo" in selecting Biden. He went on to say Obama chose Biden to "shore up his weakness – inexperience in office and on foreign policy." Now Biden certainly isn’t new but given his harsh criticism of the Bush and McCain policies in the Mideast, calling him ‘status quo" is questionable. Still I shrugged, letting it pass. The statement that Obama’s weaknesses are "inexperience in office and on foreign policy," is, however, eminently debatable; they may be his strength. He was right on Iraq. Experienced folks got it wrong. At this point, I wondered why Fournier’s piece wasn’t on the Op Ed page. Ah, but a few paragraphs down, my doubts ballooned:

"Indeed, Obama has begun to aggressively counter McCain’s criticism with negative TV ads and retorts from the campaign trail."

For Fournier, McCain’s relentlessly negative TV ads and comments are "criticism" while Obama’s responses are "negative."

Whoa! Sounds like a McCain press release, I thought.

Then, quite by chance, I happened on a Washington Monthly. com posting (August 23) on that very "analysis."

"McCain campaign staffers," Steve Benen wrote, "are pushing it fairly aggressively to other reporters in large part because it mirrors the Republican line with minimal variation."

Benen’s piece notes that in 2006 top McCain aides asked Fournier to hire on with the Senator.

I cannot read Mr. Fournier’s heart and soul. He may be guilty of nothing more than failing to examine himself for bias. Which reminds me that journalism, like politics, is about people, the imperfect kind. So I keep reminding myself my perceptions may be inaccurate. I wish everybody would. Meanwhile, please read, watch and listen carefully. The medium can skew the message.