Chronicle should consider shuttering DC bureau (cont'd)
Today's column from the Chronicle's D.C. bureau reporter Julie Mason is the latest to lend credence to the notion that the newspaper should consider shutting down its D.C. operation and redeploying the journalistic resources locally.
There's little compelling reporting in the column, which instead seems to be a recitation of what White House journalists are saying to each other in the press room:
President Bush, facing a second week of a controversy over a White House leak investigation, declared on Monday that he would fire anyone on his staff who committed a crime in the matter.
"I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," Bush said after a meeting with the Indian prime minister.
The president's declaration raised the bar for what constituted a firing offense. Previously, Bush said he would fire anyone involved in leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Here's what President Bush said on September 30, 2003:
Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
So, the bar is actually in exactly the same place, contrary to Mason's assertion.
The D.C. bureau's continued lackluster reporting suggests that it just doesn't have the access that a quality Texas newspaper ought to have in Washington, considering the number of Texas Republicans in prominent positions in the executive and legislative branches. Given the Chronicle's editorial stance, of course, that's not entirely surprising. And the fact that the bureau generally (and Mason specifically) either purposely or incompetently slants stories as badly as the example above suggests that better access to Republican pols isn't likely.
At this point, the Chronicle would probably be better served by outsourcing most D.C. reporting to other newspapers (much like the Sunday editorial page does!) and the wire services.
RELATED: Moving the goalposts (Just One Minute).
ANNE LINEHAN ADDS: Julie Mason also slips an ABC News poll into her story:
A poll by ABC News concluded that 75 percent of Americans believe that if Rove or anyone else leaked classified information, he should be fired. And nearly 50 percent think the White House is not fully cooperating with the investigation.
Sigh.
The ABC News poll has already been dissected by a RedState.org contributor:
Beyond this, they have committed more grave methodological errors on this third question. Before they have even asked this question, they have hinted, in the subtext, at an answer. In the first question we reviewed, they implied that it is possible that the White House is responsible for this whole situation, that they were the leakers -- and that, once again, as a consequence of this whole fiasco, some journalist is in jail. This can potentially prime the respondent into an anti-White House position. If you have been paying very little attention to the story, and ABC News calls you up one night and tells you, in moment one, that the White House might be responsible for the leak; and, in moment two, asks you whether the White House has been cooperating...what are you going to say?
Take Home Point: The chances are very high that the average American is not paying attention to this. And political scientists have found that when people are not paying much attention to an issue, they are quite susceptible to “framing effects” that can be created through question wording and question ordering (for more detail, see John Zaller’s The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, 1992). These sorts of framing effects can be designed in such a way to give the impression that the public thinks something that it does not.
Increasingly we see the media creating news with polls, and increasingly we discover the polls have been conducted in a questionable manner. That's lazy journalism.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 07/19/05 09:20 PM | Print |
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.