"Impressive display" of objective reporting?

During the course of a post not long past, I took Wes Allison to task for using the phrase "impressive display" regarding one of President Obama's early achievements in office.

I don't think the phrase belongs in objective writing. On the other hand, I don't particularly champion objective writing. I think I can report objectively about as well as anyone (the neutrality part, anyway) when I want to wear that hat. But I have a big problem with mainstream media outlets pretending to set objectivity as the ideal while falling ridiculously short of even the appearance of success.

Google has added a searchable news archive. Anyone should be able to check the results of my survey.

I had never used the archive search feature on Google before, so the graphics immediately grabbed by attention. The phrase roughly doubled in usage in the mid 1980s and has stayed high ever since.

A 1989 hit from the Washington Post talks about an "impressive display" of military strength at George H. W. Bush's inauguration. This one counts as less as a failure of objectivity than as a failure to avoid trite phrasing.

A news analysis piece from 1993 talks about President Bill Clinton's "impressive display" of log-rolling. News analysis. That's where reporters are allowed to drop the pretense of objectivity.

Another entry combines elements of the first two. It was a news analysis piece from 1995 referring to an "impressive display" of military might by the Chinese navy.

The fourth hit, from 1998 in The New York Times, talks about how some of the past achiements of Indonesia's President Suharto amounted to an "impressive display" of political control. The phrase in context seems neither objective nor flattering.

The next hit was a public relations piece from Advantest. PR releases are generally not regarded as objective.

The next hit has the phrase in a quotation (that sort of thing doesn't count against reporter objectivity).

The seventh hit, from Reuters, again uses "impressive display" in reference to the military, this time in South Africa (2001).

The eighth hit deals with sports (cricket, which also suggests that the American standard of objectivity is inapplicable in the first place).

The ninth hit finally gives us "impressive display" in reference to the second Bush presidency. But we find it in its most appropriate application in American journalism, in the writings of opinion columnist Molly Ivins.

The second page of hits turns us back to 1939.

The 1939 entry again refers to a military display (thus helping to prove that it is trite).

The second hit on the second page calls Richard Milhous Nixon's floor support more impressive than that produced by Rockefeller during the 1968 Republican National Convention. What I can gather of the context suggests an underlying objective comparison (more signs, louder shouting).

The third hit is similar to the former in character, this time via the Chicago Tribune in reference to a museum display.

The fourth hit refers to an "impressive display" of (what else?) military strength. It's actually a repeat of one from the first page of hits.

James Gerstenzang, in the LA Times, wrote in 1990 about the "impressive display" of solidarity in establishing international resolve against Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait. Though the full context would require payment, Gerstenzang's non-objective phrasing is apparently somewhata mitigated since he seems to play off of a Bush statement that established the judgment in question.

The sixth hit perhaps equals Allison's transgression in characterizing political support for an announcing candidate as an "impressive display." David Ibata wrote it in 1991 for The Chicago Tribune.

The seventh hit repeats the Clinton log-rolling one.

The eighth hit represents another repeat.

The ninth hit is fresh, and represents a columnist's judgment of some negotiating by Jesse Jackson. Columnists get to offer non-objective opinions since columns are not expected to deliver straight news.


The survey supports my impression that "impressive display" is rarely used in objective journalism, and rarer still when applied to the achievements of individual politicians.

The St. Petersburg Times celebrates Obama victory on stimulus package (Updated x2)

Curious about the coverage of the stimulus bill in the The St. Petersburg Times, I went in search of its online coverage.

Wes Allison wrote the news story, which amounts to a qualified celebration of "a resounding victory for Barack Obama."

Unfortunately I can't be surprised at coverage that omits criticisms of the bill from the Congressional Budget Office and "a range of respected economists." At least not from the Times.

This is a front page story, mind you, without any discernible "news analysis" or "opinion" tag. So the straight news is telling us that Obama achieved "an impressive display of political muscle and congressional pliability just three weeks, three days into his presidency."

"Impressive." Reads like editorial judgment to me. "Just three weeks, three days." Almost as if the writer is informing you that such impressive victories are extra-impressive if they come early. Again, an editorial judgment.

And not just any editorial judgment. Allison serves up editorial judgment at odds with much of mainstream punditry, which sees Obama as having misstepped in a number of ways depending on who makes the editorial judgment.

No worries, Times readers. The new pres is doing a fine job, even if the old press has lost any knack for objectivity it once possessed (look for a subsequent post exploring the use of "impressive display" in the news).

So we have a clue where Allison stands regarding Obama. The rest of the story tends to reinforce the slant.


Paragraph 5:

(D)espite Obama's aggressive outreach. Republican leaders pounded the package ...

Obama's "aggressive outreach" consisted of nothing more than an initial plan calling for a considerable role for tax cuts as part of the stimulus package along with make-nice meetings with Republicans. Obama then handed the bill off to Democratic leaders in Congress, who promptly made it a considerably more partisan bill. More on that later. Meanwhile, "aggressive outreach" passes for gross and misleading hyperbole.

Paragraph 6:

Clumsy infighting over spending cuts demanded by the relatively narrow Democratic margin in the Senate nearly caused a revolt among liberal Democrats in the House, just as House and Senate negotiators were gathering to ink the deal.

Hopefully Allison refers to the margin in the voting, for the party margins in the Senate haven't been this wide since 1979. Allison's earlier statement about the "impressive victory" seems ridiculous in that light. Practically all Obama has to do is please all the Democrats and he can pass whatever he likes through the Senate.

But then we get to paragraph 8:

All of which combined to take some of the luster off Friday's passage and speaks to the relative inexperience of the Obama administration, even though the president, vice president and their top aides all came from Capitol Hill.

Now he tells us! Thank heavens for the inverted pyramid structure and newspaper readers' not coincidental tendency to pay greatest attention to the first few paragraphs. Though this paragraph communicates a key aspect of the politics surrounding the stimulus bill, Allison's lead omits any hint of it.

The next few paragraphs descend into the bizarre.

Allison thinks Obama "miscalculated" (objective judgment?) by not stumping for the plan in public to counter Republican attacks on the bill. Again, given that congressional Democrats worked over the bill to get rid of most of its initial bipartisanship, how was Obama supposed to defend the changes without shooting himself in the foot? Allison's account explicitly suggests that the Republican attacks on the bill were largely unfounded ("some false"--no examples, as far as I can tell). Somehow the Associated Press, not exactly Fox News, found an array of reputable economists to disparage the bill, albeit the version Obama will sign into law. The early version certainly drew its share of criticism from economists, however.

As the story progresses, the story leaks more mitigating detail, even slipping in another editorial judgment that House Republicans were "justifiably" piqued when Pelosi largely cut them out of the legislative process. Allison says "some Republican amendments were eventually adopted." THOMAS, a government Web site established partly to aid in tracking legislation, and Opencongress.org only list eight House amendments to HR 1 ("American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009").

In order:
14 (actually 95, judging from the description), offered by Bill Shuster (R-PA). Passed.
16 (actually 109, judging from the description) offered by Randy Neugebauer (R-TX). Failed.
17 (actually 172, judging from the description), offered by Maxine Waters (D-CA). Passed.
18 (actually 132, judging from the description) offered by Jeff Flake (R-AZ). Failed.
19 (actually 198, judging by the description), offered by Larry Kissel (D-NC). Passed.
20 (actually 22, judging from the description), offered by Todd Russell Platts (R-PA) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). Passed.
21 (actually 188, judging from the description), offered by Aaron Schock (R-IL) and Adam Smith (D-WA). Passed.
22 (actually 195, judging from the description), offered by Dave Camp (R-MI) and Eric Cantor (R-VA). Failed.

Shuster's bill does not seem particularly significant. One wonders which Republican amendments Allison had in mind. Perhaps he considered amendments proposed by Republicans in the Senate, after the bill was out from under Pelosi's thumb.

Descriptions and alternative numbers obtained here.

Most of the remainder of the story consists of spin cautioning against a premature obituary for Obama bipartisanship. That aspect of the story somewhat contradicts the lead. One could say that Allison puts his big "but" at the end of the story.


Update:

Power Line serves up the perfect accompaniment to my post, complete with a nifty cartoon from Michael Ramirez.

Update 2:
Corrected a few typos and rephrased a sentence or two to slightly moderate my criticism of the news story.

Obama the bipartisan?

The St. Petersburg Times wonders if president-elect Barack Obama can keep his promise of bipartisanship.

He didn't exactly promise bipartisanship, did he?

(P)artisan posturing is so ingrained in the capital's culture that Obama faces a huge challenge to overcome it.

The 24-hour news cycle and blogosphere are fueled by smash-mouth politics. President Bush and the Democrats who run Congress made their own promises about bipartisanship but rarely practiced what they preached. And spoiling the other guy's plans has become an end in itself.

Bush's record is, I think, better than the Times suggests given his efforts to encourage bipartisan legislation such as "No Child Left Behind" (co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy), McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform and the Medicare drug benefit program. Add to that the rare exercise of the Bush veto pen. But it's fair to point out that Bush has also been at odds with Congress on a number of issues (and not surprising since Congress is at odds with itself on a variety of issues). Yet even in those instances Bush has tended to encourage compromise.

But this is really about Obama.

Yet there are signs that Obama could tame the partisanship.

That one caught me by surprise. "Like what?" I thought in reply.

He has shown a willingness to work with Republicans in the U.S. Senate and in the Illinois Senate, and to entertain dissenting views.

Bush was notable for his record of aisle-crossing in Texas, where admittedly the average Democrat is not like the average Washington Democrat. Entertaining dissenting views means nothing unless you find a compromise position. Otherwise it does not lead to taming partisanship but rather an additional source of frustration for the other side, like a delicious cherry Pop-Tart kept tantalizingly close but ever out of your reach.

He has built a career as a consensus builder.

When? Where? Places? Names? Consensi?

When he became the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review, he angered liberal black friends by promoting conservatives to top jobs.

I'm sure that's very laudable, but at the same time wouldn't Obama have created the potential for a lawsuit if he had promoted employees based on ideology rather than according to qualifications? Not that a law student would allow such a thing to cross his mind, of course.

Writers Wes Allison and Bill Adair (yes, the PolitiFact guy) say Obama could overcome challenges to his promise of bipartisanship, and that Obama needs to pick a few Republicans for key positions in his administration. And then pick his fights.

Unlike 1992, when Bill Clinton was intent on reinventing health care, or 2004, when President Bush was intent on creating private accounts for Social Security, the items at the top of Obama's agenda aren't polarizing in and of themselves.

Americans may disagree with how to address them, but there's little disagreement they need addressing: bringing the war in Iraq to some sensible conclusion, promoting energy independence and, first of all, stabilizing the housing market and restoring confidence in the U.S. economy.

"(B)ringing the war in Iraq to some sensible conclusion"? That's already been largely accomplished by his predecessor in office. It's easily done if Obama relaxes his push to get troops out of Iraq because of the now-absent civil war. He can follow the advice of his generals and provide logistic support for Iraqi security forces until they are ready to stand entirely on their own. And if he does that he will anger the fringe of his own party.

Promoting energy independence? Obama's plan frowns on nuclear power, clean coal, and development of domestic oil and gas reserves. What's left? Wind? Solar? An investment in an engine that propel a vehicle at a rate of 100 mpg? Tire inflation? The keystone of the Obama plan seems to be conservation. Free ourselves from foreign dependence by using less, and if that damages the economy--shhhhhhh. Not so loud.

And the number one priority, according to the Times? Stabilize the housing market and restore confidence in the U.S. economy. Newflash: The housing market is pretty much stabilized, in terms of value. New houses won't get any cheaper, and that will largely sustain the value of existing homes. The problem with credit remains. If you can't get a mortgage, you're not likely to buy a house. The credit problem, we hope, was addressed reasonably well. The remaining problem, assuming the availability of credit, is the business climate.

For Obama, that may be a huge problem. Many of Obama's policies will make things more difficult for business. He plans to mandate employee health coverage for all businesses above a certain size (as yet undetermined unless he's just keeping it a secret), raise tax rates on capital gains, raise the top marginal income tax rate and raise the payroll tax on income over $200,000. Those policies are not business-friendly, for they increase costs and shrink available capital. If Obama keeps his campaign promises then he probably can't address the biggest problem successfully.

In fact, Obama will probably end up pinning his hopes on something else entirely--something that has some chance of success. And his choice will determine very quickly the degree of bipartisanship we'll see from this president. He will receive great pressure from the hard left to make good on his most left-leaning apparent promises. Conservative congressional Democrats--and there are a good number who ran on conservative issues in 2006--will fight him on those issues if he aligns with the hard left.

Obama is likely to find himself in the same trap that President Jimmy Carter encountered in 1976. Running as an outsider/reformer, one can easily make an enemy of his own party. Perhaps Obama can learn from Carter's mistakes, but it won't be easy unless he strays from the lines drawn by his campaign rhetoric.

If Obama can avoid one of the shortest honeymoon periods of any president, then he will have a chance at presidential greatness.

No offense to the new president, but I'm expecting the short honeymoon. Obama's choices will determine whether he starts getting hit hard first from the right or to the left. He will need to choose brilliantly to preserve any appearance of bipartisanship while also avoiding the Carter trap.


***

I doubt I'll have time to create it, but I had in my mind earlier this week a polital cartoon featuring Obama seated sidesaddle on a Democratic donkey version of the push-me-pull-you. The rider would be saying "Giddyup!" while both heads of the creature labeled "Unified Government" look him askance. This president will have a difficult time of it.

The St. Petersburg Times braces for Petraeus

No, they're not expecting a late-season hurricane.

Seeing word that the New York Times is disparaging progress in Iraq leading up to General David Petraeus' address to Congress and various committees thereof, I decided to see to what extent I would be "In the Know" thanks to the St. Petersburg Times.

The Sunday story, authored by Wes Allison, avoids any direct assessment of ground conditions in Iraq. Instead, Allison paints the situation in terms of the political debate. Republicans will argue for continuing the surge, rolling the dice despite the unpopularity of the effort, while the Democrats will soften their efforts to set a withdrawal timetable.

The story itself seems political.

Allison throws in some cues to tip off the anti-war crowd that he doesn't necessarily buy the idea that the surge is working--though he does report the reversal of Democrat Brian Baird, who now favors continuing the surge. Positives in terms of security, as well as the negatives in terms of Iraqi politics, are not delivered as objective news, but in terms of the claims of the factions in Washington.

I do give Allison some credit, however. I don't see any unmistakable sign that he dismisses the conservative side of the debate as inherently untenable.

As-is, the story seems crafted to leave unchallenged the thinking of readers regarding the actual situation in Iraq. More importantly, it doesn't touch at all on the consequences for failure in Iraq. That's a bit strange, considering it's the answer to the question Allison chooses to provide the introduction to his story:

Who knew that opposing an unpopular war could be so difficult?
(St. Petersburg Times, read the rest for yourself)

I could have told him that way back in November. If you're a congressional Democrat, you need a plan that doesn't sound stupid, and one that leaves you relatively free of blame if a genocide results in Iraq.

The Democrats have no plan. They're sticking with what got them elected: Criticize Republicans for whatever goes wrong.