Is the Times too "Mean to Dean?" The key thing is Okrent is surfing blogs.
January 18, 2004
THE PUBLIC EDITOR
Dr. Dean Assumes His Place on the Examining Table
By DANIEL OKRENT
Jodi Wilgoren has been the lead Times correspondent on Howard Dean's campaign plane since last summer. She was among the first national reporters to recognize the propulsive force of the Dean movement, in July, when she wrote a front-page article studded with phrases describing how the candidate ''burst from his obscurity to rank among the top contenders" and his ''stunning surge" in the fund-raising race; a subhead read, ''Standing Up for His Beliefs." People in the Dean campaign believe she's an excellent reporter. I've never met her, but as a faithful reader I think so, too.
But judging by my e-mail and my Web surfing (which included a stop at a blog called ''The Wilgoren Watch"), she has a lot of detractors. Not Gephardtians angry about what they perceive as The Times's obsession with their candidate's fund-raising difficulties. Not Kucinichers who believe that The Times ''has for many months and from very early on been a heavy promoter of Dr. Dean; I don't think too many people would dispute that," as the congressman's press secretary, David Swanson, told my associate Arthur Bovino. No, Wilgoren seems to have become the face on the dartboard for Dean supporters.
Nearly every time there's a story about Dean in the paper, my in-box fills with complaints from his fans. (Every time there isn't a story providing a précis of a new policy statement from the Dean camp, it's almost the same.) They attack the editors of The Times, Wilgoren, national political correspondent Adam Nagourney and other staff reporters for misrepresenting, ridiculing or attempting to sabotage Howard Dean. They especially object to The Times's microscopic inspection of their candidate while, many say, the depredations of George W. Bush go unexamined.
One reader asks, ''Is The Times reprising its relentless attacks on Clinton by now using the Democratic front-runner" as its target? Another calls one senior reporter a ''Republican operative." A third has canceled her subscription to the paper because of an analysis she considered an ''effort to topple Howard Dean." Some complain that The Times is improperly obsessed with Dean's personality, or unfairly digging into his past or - a complaint common, it seems, to all the campaigns - too interested in handicapping the electoral horse race while ignoring substantive policy positions.
I took a few days off from scanning the incoming artillery before calling Dean headquarters last week. Campaign spokesman Jay Carson understandably didn't want to comment on the quality of The Times's coverage, but he did have something to say about what the e-mail barrage represents: The Dean crusade (my term, not his, and meant as a compliment) is ''the greatest grass-roots campaign in modern history," he said, and he continued: "These people write letters, they make phone calls, they give money. It's just a very high level of commitment."
I'll say. The complaints from Dean's adherents have struck me with such force that they've triggered Bennet's Corollary, a formulation of The Times's Jerusalem bureau chief, James Bennet: "Just because everyone is mad at you doesn't necessarily mean you're doing the right thing." (It's a phrase that most journalists, who play defense even more aggressively than they play offense, should etch into their computer screens.) This past week, it led me to reread The Times's Democratic campaign coverage since Dec. 1.
The paper has made mistakes. Wilgoren's description of Dean listening to Al Gore announce his endorsement (Dec. 10) was inappropriate in a news article: ''Dr. Dean smirked his trademark smirk"; that's columnist language. The visual used to illustrate an article on Dean's temper (Jan. 3) was more problematic; it was the cover of a recent issue of National Review, with the face of an inflamed Dean above the headline, ''Please Nominate This Man." The caption noted that National Review is a ''conservative journal," but there's no escaping the fact that this wasn't an example of Dean's temper, but of what an avowedly partisan publication thinks of Dean's temper.
Some headlines understandably aroused the troops. David Halbfinger's fine Jan. 4 piece detailing the potential mechanics of a Dean collapse (if you're an electoral horse-race fan, it was irresistible; if you're a Dean fan, it was probably alarming) appeared under the words ''Yes, Howard Dean Can Be Toppled and How." Halb-finger, uttering a line that is a version of every reporter's mantra, says, ''I've long since stopped worrying about headlines, as I have no control of them." Week in Review editor Katy Roberts, who does, admits that ''the headline, in trying too hard to be cute (with the double meaning of 'and how') may have misrepresented the story."
In the news pages on Jan. 9, the head over a piece chiefly about Dean voters in Iowa read, ''Tide of Second Thoughts Rises Among Democrats." Judging by what appeared in the article, the ''tide" consisted of the four Iowans quoted in the story and some unknown portion of the ''dozens" of others with whom the writers spoke.
I found the front-page play given one story peculiar and inappropriate. Managing editor Jill Abramson stoutly defends the placement of ''Vermont Auditors Faulted Dean Aide on Contract in '92" (Jan. 6), by Rick Lyman, because ''this was a revealing example of how Dean handled the award of a lucrative state contract to a company connected to a close political ally." I think it was a revealing example of how newspapers tend to inflate their own scoops.
Abramson says the story was additionally relevant because of the way ''Dean and the Democrats are also assailing the Bush administration for secrecy." But a story so old, and so tenuously connected to Dean's own actions, didn't need to shout. Page 1 is a megaphone, and the same piece, run inside the paper and at less imposing length, could have been delivered at a more appropriate volume. Executive editor Bill Keller believed that the story was important, but he told me, ''I concede we might have overplayed it."
That's what I found in seven weeks of intense coverage: one sentence; one picture; two headlines; and an overplayed story. I'm sure I missed some other questionable phrasings, but certainly not enough that could signify a pattern of behavior or betray a partisan agenda. It's true that many thoughtful Dean supporters have carefully dissected a variety of other pieces to reveal a tilt against Dean. But the tilt they identify is invariably a part of the story under examination. An article detailing what Dean's opponents perceive to be his weaknesses is legitimate news. All the "on the one hands" and "on the other hands" you could stuff into such a piece wouldn't dissipate the negative aura it necessarily emits. Individual articles may be rough on the candidate, but individual articles do not constitute coverage. What the paper does over time, through the long slog of a campaign, is what matters.
I have a suggestion for angry Deaniacs (including those who objected to reporter Todd Purdum's use of the term "Deaniacs" on Jan. 11, even though many of Dean's own supporters use the term themselves - see www.deaniacs.org). Think of a politician you dislike - maybe one of the Democrats Dean is battling - and substitute his name for Dean's in any piece about your man. If it still sounds unfair, there's the possibility it is. But without passing such a test, you're left not with ''an insult to our democracy," as one of my correspondents calls the paper's campaign coverage, but with journalism.
I think Jay Carson is right - the grass-roots activists Dr. Dean has inspired should absolutely make phone calls, write letters, hound public editors. But they have to recognize that the full-body physical their candidate has to endure is a sign of good fortune, the direct consequence of being in front. By my count (I did it quickly, so don't arrest me if I'm off by two or three), from Dec. 1 through this past Friday, The Times published 59 major stories or editorials about Dean. Wesley Clark has been up for view 30 times. No other candidate has enjoyed (or suffered) more than 20 appearances in the paper. Carol Moseley Braun got only three shots - and two of those were about her decision to leave the race.
Memo to Dean supporters: If you think it's rough when The Times has you under observation, be prepared to strap on your seat belts if he wins the nomination.
The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. He may be reached by e-mail: public@nytimes.com. Telephone messages: (212) 556-7652. The public editor's column appears at least twice monthly in this section.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
