NY Times Attacks USA Next
Bob Kohn
Sometimes the New York Times says the darndest things, as in today's front-page story by Glen Justice on a Washington lobbying group. The article is a clear hatchet job, using a classic guilt by association technique:
<<<
A NEW TARGET FOR ADVISERS TO SWIFT VETS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 - Taking its cues from the success of last year's Swift boat veterans' campaign in the presidential race, a conservative lobbying organization has hired some of the same consultants to orchestrate attacks on one of President Bush's toughest opponents in the battle to overhaul Social Security.
>>>
The headline and the first paragraph are not only vehicles for the hatchet job, they are perfect examples of the shoddy journalism you find these days on the pages of the New York Times. Without the second paragraph of the story, you don't even know who the paper is talking about!
But we do know it's about a "conservative lobbying" organization. Later in the article, the organization's chief lobbying rival, the AARP, is not characterized as a "liberal lobbying" organization. So much for "fair and balanced."
When you get to the second paragraph, you finally learn the target of the hatchet job:
<<<
The lobbying group, USA Next, which has poured millions of dollars into Republican policy battles, now says it plans to spend as much as $10 million oncommercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the powerhouse lobby opposing the private investment accounts at the center of Mr. Bush's plan.
>>>
That a lobbying group who supports Republican policies has hired a PR firm and a media firm who happened to have other clients who have helped Republican causes is news? Have we ever seen a front-page article about the associations of PR and media firms hired by liberal organizations? If you want to report on such associations, fine. But to make it the lead of the story demonstrates a clear slant.
An objective news organization would have written the headline and lead this way:
<<<
USA NEXT TO SUPPORT BUSH ON SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 - USA Next, a conservative lobbying organization, says it plans to spend as much as $10 million dollars on advertisements and other promotional activities in support of the Bush administration's proposal to add private investment accounts to the social security system. The move is in response to opposing efforts by the AARP, a liberal lobbying organization representing many older Americans, who recently commenced a $5 million advertising campaign to oppose the president's social security reform proposals.
>>>
Then, if the paper wanted to point out the media and PR associations of USA Next, it could do so. (To be fair, it should also point out who the AARP has been using for its advertisements and PR). In that way, the article would not have pre-spun the news against USA Next and President Bush's social security proposals, which the Times editorial page has opposed.
On the jump page, you'll find the following sentence:
<<<
USA Next has been portraying AARP as a liberal organization out of step with Republican values, and is now trying to discredit its stance on Social Security.
>>>
First, it's interesting that the Times, in its lead sentence, had no problem characterizing USA Next as a "conservative" organization, but is not willing to portray AARP as a "liberal" organization. Second, USA is not trying to "discredit" the AARP's stance on anything; it's trying to persuade people that the AARP is wrong. Big difference.
If USA Next actually intends to "orchestrate attacks" against he AARP, it's not likely to "discredit" the organization, but just the opposite: It's time the AARP is "credited" as the liberal organization it really is.
USA Next's national chairman is Art Linkletter, and accompanying the article on the jump page is a photograph of Linkletter speaking with the organization's president, Charles Jarvis. Wouldn't it have been more interesting to read about the "who, what, when, where, how & why" of Art Linkletter's association with the USA Next?
posted by Bob Kohn
bobkohn.blogspot.com |
