Reference below is to the print version of the following lead article in The New York Times:
Dean Emerging as Likely Chief for Democrats
Dear Mr. Okrent,
I dashed off a quick e-mail to you last night expressing dissatisfaction with the news article "Dean Emerging as Likely Chief for Democrats (Feb. 2; p. A-1). To ensure that my concerns are heard and understood, here are some specific comments.
In a 28 paragraph article, Nagourney and Kornblut somehow manage not to include any favorable quotes about how Dean's likely ascendancy to the DNC Chair might be good for the Party. Yet, the article is full of negative and out of context quotes, snarky asides, and "viewed by some" phraseology expressing the contrary view.
For one, let's examine this sentence in the paragraph beginning just above the fold on A-1:
"Democrats marveled at how someone who had been viewed by some as a symbol of what was wrong with the party - Mr. McEntee described Dr. Dean as "nuts" after he withdrew his endorsement of him in the middle of the presidential campaign - was now on the brink of becoming a face of the opposition to President Bush."
1. "who had been viewed by some as a symbol of what was wrong with the party" -- this is certainly a true statement with respect to a certain element of the Party, but nothing in the article gives any weight to fact that Dean was also viewed by many in the Party as a symbol of what was right with the Party. The whole article is heavily weighted against such a view.
2. "who had been viewed by some as a symbol of what was wrong with the party - Mr. McEntee described Dr. Dean as "nuts" after he withdrew his endorsement of him in the middle of the presidential campaign"
a. the "nuts" quote from McEntee seems to be a gratuitous slam in this sentence and does not explain or relate to Dean as a symbol of what some view was wrong with the Party -- Dean's support of civil unions, opposition to Iraq War or his anti-Bush stridency would be relevant.
b. The statement that McEntee "withdrew his endorsement of him in the middle of the presidential campaign" is technically accurate, but misleading. McEntee withdrew his support after Dean's losses in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere because he no longer believed Dean had any chance to get the nomination ("near the end of Dean's own campaign" would be the accurate statement). He made his "nuts" comment over what he saw as Dean's unwillingness to acknowledge the inevitably of his loss of the nomination (which would have eased the ability of his union to endorse Kerry as early as possible without the embarasment of withdrawing the endorsement); Dean's position was that he had made a commitment to his supporters not to withdraw before the Wisconsin primary. I can't see how this quote has anything remotely to do with some people's view of why Dean would be wrong for the Party.
c. Isn't it clever that the only remotely favorable quote about Dean in the article (and that only about the inevitability of his election as DNC Chair) is also from McEntee. When NY Times critics talk about how "snarky" the Times political coverage has become (aside from the Elizabeth Bumiller beat), this is precisely the kind of example they mean.
Later in the article is the suggestion that Dean is prevailing in part because of financial promises to the state parties (did his opponents not make similar promises?) and because of a "relatively weak field" (I wonder what this assessment is based on: were there previous fields of candidates in other years for DNC Chair that were seen as noticeably stronger at the time?).
With respect to the quotes of Pelosi and Reid, it would be appropriate to indicate when these quotes were made -- I suspect they were not quotes made in response to queries for this story, but quotes made in weeks past.
While not finding room for any quote favorable to a Dean DNC Chairmanship, Nagourney and Kornblut did include two long quotes from "delighted" or "amused" Republicans (both with obligatory "scream" references). I suspect that one would have been sufficient.
I would be less likely to write in this detail if this wasn't part of a continuing pattern of coverage by Times political reporters of Dr. Dean. Founts of conventional wisdom and poor political analysis (unlike, for example, John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal) which they try to compensate for by unsuccessfully channeling Maureen Dowd, New York Times political reporters (and Nagourney may be the worst offender) continue to engage in "snarky" and slip-shod journalism. It's past time that they be called to account for this.
Sincerely,
Ben Brackley