Saul Friedman: In stories about Bush’s veto, the hoo-ha graf was missing
Posted at 2:14 pm, May 4th, 2007
Whatever happened to the second paragraph, or the third, the one in which the reporter explains what the story is really about? It’s not necessary, you know, to let a politician’s assertion or anyone’s quote go without comment, without saying what the facts are.
In one Washington bureau where I spent my time, the bureau chief called it the “hoo-ha” graf, or the “nut” graf, which was meant to qualify, explain or apply truthiness, as Colbert would say, to the quote. Just because it’s someone else’s quote, does not mean the reporter is no longer responsible for it.
Indeed, the late great publisher John S. Knight once reminded me that if I quoted a general saying the troops would be home by Christmas, and they weren’t, readers by and large won’t remember who said it, but simply that “my newspaper said the troops would home” and it was wrong. If a source is full of crap, Knight said, the reporter and his or her paper or newscast will be soiled. Look at what happened in the run-up to the war in Iraq, when too many reporters did not bother to find out or quote what others thought or said. What would have happened if these reporters bothered to say, in that third graf, “But other sources….”
Which brings me to the present, and the reporting on President Bush’s veto of the congressional legislation calling for a date to begin the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. I understand the temptation of editors to dwell on the clash between the president and the Democrats; but is that all the story was about?
Most of the stories I read–from the Associated Press, CNN and the Washington Post–led, of course, with the president’s action and his extensive quotes, with some balancing quotes from Democrats. But only the AP made passing mention (in the fifth graf) of the number of American who had died in Iraq. CNN waited until the 17th graph to tell us. And amazingly, the lengthy story in the Post never even mentioned the casualty figures.
Why should this fact, or the fact that April was so deadly–for Americans and Iraqis–be so deeply buried? Cannot a reporter who has covered the conflict for these frustrating and deadly years do more than that? The likelihood that more Americans and Iraqis were about to die was worth a second or third graf, right after the president’s quote: “It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing…”
May 5th, 2007 at 9:25 am |
You make a very good observation. I’m afraid the “hoo ha” graf is no longer taught in journalism — assuming these “reporters” actually went to j-school. However, I think it might be more appropriate to say this graf EXPOSES the truthiness in the quote.
The definition of truthiness being:
“Truthiness is a satirical term coined by television comedian Stephen Colbert to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively, instinctively, or ‘from the gut’ without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or actual facts.”
Unless, of course, the president actually spoke the truth, which is unlikely to happen in this administration. It is so rare that it actually didn’t occur to me as a possibility until I started trying to make up an example and thought of Jimmy Carter.
As Colbert so beautifully illustrates, truthiness is the stock in trade of pundits. Increasingly, that is also true of “reporters.” It is particularly obvious with topics like evolution/creationism,global warming, blogs, or progressive politics. Often an outrageous claim is “balanced” by an even more egregious fringe claims. (eg., Broder says bloggers are all cheeto-eating losers, but some say they are actually spawns of the devil.)
And you are absolutely correct about the effect this has on the consumer. Editors who require or accept this type of reporting have made their news outlets increasingly irrevelant. This is nowhere more obvious than outlets like the New York Time, the Washington Post and CNN. They once enjoyed great respect for the quality of their news reporting, but those days are long past. People remember the front-page drumbeating for war in Iraq, the unwillingness to confront this administration, and they rarely remember the reporter. But even when they do, they blame the news outlets for allowing them to abuse the public trust.
May 5th, 2007 at 4:17 pm |
Yes. They could even say–accurately–that most experts believe that many more Iraqis would die upon an immmediate US withdrawal than are now dying. Surely you’d want that nut included as well.
I’d love to see this in the typical budget conversation. No program or tax should ever be discussed without mention of the total federal budget and the total tax burden.
May 20th, 2007 at 11:27 am |
Whatever happened to the American body count from Iraq? We are “fighting” a war without numbers or pictures. Mr Bush thought he picked an easy target. He never read his history books, nor much else. Forget the tax burden. Let us see the coffins as they are secretly flown back to the U.S. and burried. Wonder what George W. and his sidekicks wil say when God asks” What was that all about?”