THE WORST POLITICAL REPORTING OF 2007
WAS PUBLISHED IN THE WASHINGTON POST.
By Chris Daly
I have been holding off writing about this, but I can't avoid it any more. It pains me to see such horrendous reporting, writing, and editing in a paper I used to work for. Now, the paper's "ombudsman," Deborah Howell, who seems like a nice person, has weighed in. As so often happens, the ombud is pulling punches and not doing the kind of reporting that would satisfy a moderately curious person.
Where to begin?
The front-page story by Perry Bacon Jr. connected Barack Obama and Islam so tightly and so frequently that it really doesn't matter what else is in there. The message was: Obama=Muslim. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. And not that religion even belongs in politics.)
Here's a little thought exercise: What if the Post ran a front-page story saying that Perry Bacon is not a child molester. Not only has Perry Bacon never been convicted of child molesting, he has never even been indicted for child molesting. So those rumors about Perry Bacon and child molestation are just not true, folks.
Now, in such a story has Perry Bacon been
1. harmed by the story?
2. helped by the story?
3. held harmless by the story?
Obviously, he has been ruined by it, in a way that can probably never be undone. Most readers would retain only the association between the name and the allegation, and certainly computerized searches are going to link the two in perpetuity.
How could this have happened?
I don't know. All I have is questions:
1. Who is Perry Bacon Jr.? I don't really know, but in two minutes of Googling him, I learned that he graduated from Yale in 2002, so he is approximately 27 years old. Since when does the Post assign 27-year-olds to write Page 1 presidential campaign pieces? (Of course, a partial explanation may arise from the fact that Bacon won a coveted 2001 internship at the Post while still at Yale. At that point, he was the features editor for the Yale Daily News, and he had already had an internship at the National Journal and was described as having been "a reporter for the Louisville Courier-Journal." This is fast-tracking with a vengeance -- a problem that I thought the Post had gotten past.)
2. Who edited this story? This is an important question when things go wrong, and one that is rarely answered. In this case, the Post is offering some lame statements by two editors. In a column by the paper's ombuds-person, M.E. Phil Bennett is quoted saying that the topic was "a legitimate subject for journalism" (What is? Untrue rumors?) and that it had been tackled by "one of our most sophisticated political reporters." (Please. If he's so damn sophisticated, how did he ever drive this train off the tracks?) Bill Hamilton, the paper's AME for politics, also had to talk to the ombud. He said he was "sorry it was misunderstood," when actually the problem is that it was understood. The problem was that it was a mistake.
3. Where is everyone else? At the Post, as at most papers, Page 1 stories are read by many, many editors, including most of the top people. Where are their comments? Who is taking any real lumps for this? Is the Post going to change anything?
I am pleased to think that the Post would not accept this kind of "investigation" and "explanation" of a similar screw-up from any institution that it really covers. It's too bad that it covers itself this way.
By Chris Daly
I have been holding off writing about this, but I can't avoid it any more. It pains me to see such horrendous reporting, writing, and editing in a paper I used to work for. Now, the paper's "ombudsman," Deborah Howell, who seems like a nice person, has weighed in. As so often happens, the ombud is pulling punches and not doing the kind of reporting that would satisfy a moderately curious person.
Where to begin?
The front-page story by Perry Bacon Jr. connected Barack Obama and Islam so tightly and so frequently that it really doesn't matter what else is in there. The message was: Obama=Muslim. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. And not that religion even belongs in politics.)
Here's a little thought exercise: What if the Post ran a front-page story saying that Perry Bacon is not a child molester. Not only has Perry Bacon never been convicted of child molesting, he has never even been indicted for child molesting. So those rumors about Perry Bacon and child molestation are just not true, folks.
Now, in such a story has Perry Bacon been
1. harmed by the story?
2. helped by the story?
3. held harmless by the story?
Obviously, he has been ruined by it, in a way that can probably never be undone. Most readers would retain only the association between the name and the allegation, and certainly computerized searches are going to link the two in perpetuity.
How could this have happened?
I don't know. All I have is questions:
1. Who is Perry Bacon Jr.? I don't really know, but in two minutes of Googling him, I learned that he graduated from Yale in 2002, so he is approximately 27 years old. Since when does the Post assign 27-year-olds to write Page 1 presidential campaign pieces? (Of course, a partial explanation may arise from the fact that Bacon won a coveted 2001 internship at the Post while still at Yale. At that point, he was the features editor for the Yale Daily News, and he had already had an internship at the National Journal and was described as having been "a reporter for the Louisville Courier-Journal." This is fast-tracking with a vengeance -- a problem that I thought the Post had gotten past.)
2. Who edited this story? This is an important question when things go wrong, and one that is rarely answered. In this case, the Post is offering some lame statements by two editors. In a column by the paper's ombuds-person, M.E. Phil Bennett is quoted saying that the topic was "a legitimate subject for journalism" (What is? Untrue rumors?) and that it had been tackled by "one of our most sophisticated political reporters." (Please. If he's so damn sophisticated, how did he ever drive this train off the tracks?) Bill Hamilton, the paper's AME for politics, also had to talk to the ombud. He said he was "sorry it was misunderstood," when actually the problem is that it was understood. The problem was that it was a mistake.
3. Where is everyone else? At the Post, as at most papers, Page 1 stories are read by many, many editors, including most of the top people. Where are their comments? Who is taking any real lumps for this? Is the Post going to change anything?
I am pleased to think that the Post would not accept this kind of "investigation" and "explanation" of a similar screw-up from any institution that it really covers. It's too bad that it covers itself this way.
Labels: Bacon, journalism, Obama, Washington Post
posted by Chris Daly at 9:52 PM
20 Comments:
I agree with you on almost every point, save one: that you ever thought the Post, or any other large metro daily, would solve its fast-tracking proclivities. This is a rampant, and very distressing, problem industry-wide.
Come to think of it, most editors in the business are pretty lousy too, so I'm not surprised they futzed the ball on this one.
All valid points except the one about the reporter's age.
A few questions/observations: Do you think this mess is partly a consequence of Harris and VanderHei's defection to Politico?
Second, this story seems like an devolutionary step towards British tabloid political reporting ("Minister denies rumors of sex romp with Bunnygirl"), which, one has to point out, is strongly correlated with a profession that fast-tracks callow youth into positions of authority on the basis of gilded college credentials.
Why do you think this kid got a break with no editorial brakes, let alone editorial insight? It's not as if there isn't or hasn't been real talent at the Post that could have produced great journalism/analysis on this topic - look at what ex-Postie Chris Lehmann is doing at the New York Observer. How did the Post lose so many talented writers and reporters in the past few years?
Question #1 is a bit unfair. I used to be an under-30 reporter, and so did my friends. Some of us were capable of good work.
Questions #2 and #3, however, are dead on target. This is where seasoned judgment is supposed to come in. The editor mainly responsible for this disgrace apparently didn't or still doesn't know the meaning of the word "rumor." Now he is whining that the story was misunderstood and that commenters are not being "responsible."
Unfortunately, despite making many valid points, the one thing that sticks out from your post is the issue of Bacon's age. Does his age really matter? As a journalist, editor and educator, I've come across journalists who have better instincts and ability at age 22 than many twice their age.
What does age have to do with anything? I know many young journalists who are better at their craft than those who have been in the business for 20 years. This is another example of blatant ageism that I see frequently in the newsroom. We may be young, but we ARE capable.
Prof. Daly, don't you think the age remarks in this are a bit out of line? I understand your driving point, but the reporters age really has no bearing. I know some 45 year-old reporters who might not have as much experience as Perry Bacon.
I am a former student of your and you always taught to make sure you find your way to the appropriate questions, I'm not sure you did that when you brought age into it.
You stepped into a minefield with this one, and I am glad you did because you raise issues that need to be discussed. For the Post to assign this important profile to one of its most junior staff members _ and someone drawn from the sports department _ shows the contempt the newspaper has for its readers and for Barack Obama's long-shot chance for the Democratic nomination. Of course the novice makes an expected juvenile mistake by getting into issues that veteran journalists have already aired by tracking down the source of the rumors to the opposition. The way the story was written gave credence to the allegation, again something veteran reporters would have avoided. Unfortunately, this isn't just a stray example, but it is what is happening as a result of the wave of buyouts of senior staff in newsrooms across the country.
Congratulations, you are the first in the last three years that I know who got Downie out of his ivory tower office to comment on yet another dreary Washington Post screw up. Downie normally cowers in his office, refusing to comment on matters of controversy his editorial judgements fire up, but he's clearly p* off this time. Wonder why? Hmmm. Was it because the criticism came from a former Postie (whose credentials Downie now seeks to attack), or it because Downie's Post is preparing layoff sheets to further downsize the Post newsroom by letting go those older veterans? The Post needs the money: it is hemmorhaging ad revenues and circulation. The penalty of this (cruel) business strategy is that it relies on the reporting abilities of younger Post staffers who are being cut loose from editorial control without the usual safeguards. For those fewer remaining Post readers, it means more of these truly bad stories written by incompetents and rushed to the paper unedited. You seem to have touched the nerve with your criticism, which I should note is as harsh as many others I can find on the Web. You are not the first to note the writer is only 27.
P.S. Note that while Downie has chosen to open guns on you, there is not a hint of remorse about this atrocious story lampooned by the Post's own cartoonist, criticized by the Post's own ombudsman, subjected to a torrent of criticism when it ran, and ridiculed in the corridors of Washington's power elite.
Bottom line: Keep it up. We need to see a Post retraction, and apology.
Would David Broder have written such a story? I agree the Post is devolving clearly into British tabloid journalism. As we see from Murdoch's empire, the revenues and circulation of British and Australian dailies isn't suffering the same as their American cousins.
You are so right! Thanks for addressing it, and I'm glad Romenesko linked to it or I might have missed your article.
As a young journalist who had her first story on National Public Radio at 25, I find your question of Bacon's age irrelevant. There are many experienced, older journalists who lack the common sense and vision that a younger person might have. I can not speak for Bacon or his article, but as a young journalist, the ageism received from older journalists is tiring and sad. It seems rooted in jealousy and ignorance. I've managed people twice my age with much less experience. But, because of their age and ego, they refused to listen to me when I could have greatly improved their reporting. Please do not assume that a young reporter can't do experienced journalism. A person can acquire much knowledge and experience in just five years our of college. And, there is something to be said for talent, too. Heard of it?
Professor Daly:
Romenesko provided the link this morning to your blog about the Washington Post's controversial piece on Obama. I was intrigued to read a former staffer's opinion about the article and its relevance.
I feel the story was poorly executed, but there were a few sirens within that give the general topic potential for a stronger piece. However, Bacon's story did not have an appropriate news peg or any new information to warrant such a prominent space. (References to Savage and Limbaugh and Insight from months ago!? And why not call them up for an interview? You'll also notice that a Dec. 9 Bacon article on Huckabee's rise takes several quotes and citations from other published/broadcast sources.)
Two of the polls in the Obama story were notable -- the Pew finding that 45 percent of Americans would be less likely to vote for a Muslim and the findings by CBS, including that 7 percent think that Obama is a Muslim while 6 percent think he is a Protestant Christian. I see smoke there for a potential analysis of religion in campaigning -- particularly after Romney's speech last week. If there's a perception that a black man with the last name of Obama is a hard sell in the Midwest in 2007-08, then the reporter has to get to the county chairs and gauge the true reaction, not simply rely on a handful of e-mail forwards and posts on message boards. (A courthouse employee in a Democratic, rural Pennsylvania county has sent me the photo of Obama supposedly refusing to place his hand over his heart. He's also sent other e-mails questioning Obama. But is this widespread, or a vocal, computer-savvy minority? Does Obama's campaign have a strategy to confront this?)
Clearly, rehashing rumors is a dangerous situation, as you explain with your child molester example. I don't understand the point of Bacon's story. I felt it read like a college newspaper article.
Lastly, I was curious by your comments about Bacon's age. The story has its problems and, arguably, should not have seen the light of day without a stronger focus. But the general scope of the story does not appear to me to be something that required an exorbitant amount of reporting or campaign experience to accomplish. (Full disclosure: I'm 29.)
Thanks for the blog entry. Discussions about ethics and journalism responsibility have just about evaporated in my newsroom
These types of articles can indeed cause rumors, but they are also one of the only ways to combat them. Certainly, the Perry Bacon child molestation article is unacceptable, but the Obama rumor is incredibly widespread already. That is not a small difference. That is the difference between your argument being valid and it being the entirely irrelevant analogy that it is.
Your own story is not exactly newsworthy. You use the most circuitous logic I have seen outside of satire.
1)You say the article was bad
2)You say that he could not be a sophisticated reporter because the article was bad.
3)You use the assumption that he's not a sophisticated reporter to try to show that the article was bad.
There is also an implicit progression that the article was bad because he was young and work articles by young authors are bad because this one is.
This isn't just bad logic, it's bad journalism.
The assumption that untrue rumors are not a legitimate subject for journalism is simply an untrue rumor. Anything that has become a big enough deal to seriously affect a political election belongs in the campaign coverage. It is not as though the Post made this rumor up.
You also fail to mention the big things that simply discredit your point of view. Your argument against Bacon is similar to the argument against Obama: he's inexperienced. That isn't true in either case. Bacon worked for Time magazine as well and has written almost 50 articles for the Post.
I don't agree that the problem is the reporter's age-- I do agree, however, that the article is poorly written. Some of the sentences are practically run-ons, and the "despite..." borderline-commentary added in everywhere qualifies the piece as a blog post, not a front-page newspaper article.
This reporter is a simply awful writer. I rarely see such writing in my local town's rag, let alone would I expect this from the Washington Post.
Anonymous said...
Would David Broder have written such a story?
Well, Broder did the unhappy piece about Ed Muskie crying. Let's see what he says about Romney's tears.
Dear Chris,
I stumbled upon your wonderful piece by chance. Thanks for stating the obvious -- that like cops backing up a colleague who has wilded out, the Established Media have taken to circling the wagons even when the offense by some reporter/editor/newssource is outrageous.
Bacon is a kid. He deserves a shout-out for callowness, but not a questioning of his right to cover presidential campaigns. You and I and Wallie Lippmann could (and did) do it. That having been said, it IS true that his article (his name is on it, right?) was lousy journalism.
The real blame goes to the editors at the Post who did such a shitty job vetting the Obama-rumors piece. Bacon's article would have given even such a wretch as Drudge some qualms, and the Post editors should all be forced to wear signs reading "Acted Stupid, REAL Stupid" around their necks for the next few months.
Thanks for having the courage to call them out. Their ad hominem responses make them, not you, look bad.
Best,
Larry Houghteling
("I'm Ho")
An article scrutinizing a defamatory rumor should shine a glaring light on those purveying the lie in question. After all, that's one of the most newsworthy aspects of the story.
That's why the Post piece fails as journalism; it doesn't do that. In fact, I think it ends up reinforcing unfounded statements about Obama.
I think you touched a nerve at the Post, where I worked for 24 years as a writer and editor.
This year the paper has assigned several non-political reporters to write its presidential candidates series.
I think you should look at the entire series. The article on Huckabee, for example, failed to mention his notorious and wholesale solicitations of gifts while governor and immediately after leaving office.
Len's comment about your work was regrettable, to say the least.
Your comment about fast-tracking reporters is clearly on point.
At age 27:
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. dropped out from his job at General Electric to become a full-time writer.
Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first person in space.
Memphis millionaire Frederic W. Smith, whose father built the Greyhound bus system, founded Federal Express.
Scottish botanist David Douglas discovered the Douglas fir.
Ernest Hemingway published his first novel, The Sun Also Rises.
Boston dentist William Morton pioneered modern anaesthesiology after learning that inhalation of ether will cause a loss of consciousness.
Jimi Hendrix choked to death on his own vomit after ingesting wine and sleeping pills.
Janis Joplin died of an overdose of whiskey and heroin.
Conceptual artist Piero Manzoni crapped in 90 small cans which were then factory sealed and offered for sale at the price of gold.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home