David Sirota defined
rectal journalism as when reporters pull facts out of their ass and report them as fact, even when facts would suggest otherwise. Today, the AP got tired of running stories about how Bush and the Republicans are tanking and instead wrote about how the "people" are mad at BOTH
Republicans and Democrats. "More and more, Americans are frustrated with politics as usual in Washington, where incompetence, arrogance, corruption and mindless partisanship seem the norm rather than the exception -- a pox on both the Republican and Democratic parties," the AP writes. Oh really?
Well, check out this Washington Post piece about Bush and the Republicans. According to their poll, 55 percent of voters plan to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress and only 40 percent plan to vote for the Republican candidate. Well, maybe the AP's right. Could voters just be mad at Republicans and Democrats equally but just planning on tossing out Republicans because they're in power? Well, Democrats are favored on health care (61-29), prescription benefits for the elderly (59-31), corruption (52-27), immigration (50-38), Iraq (49-42), the economy (49-43), and terrorism (46-45). Does that sound like "pox on both your houses?" So where did the AP get that? Out of their ass of course.
Then they try to sell us on the "both parties are equally corrupt" by saying that a poll they took in December (4 months ago, before Abramoff) said that independents considered Democrats and Republicans equally corrupt. This is journalism??? They cite a 4 month old poll to prop up a claim they just made up out of thin air. Well, maybe they could take a look at the Washington Post poll--hmm...52 percent trust Democrats to deal with corruption and only 27 percent trust Republicans. But the AP is not about to let facts get in the way of a good story.
Instead of citing recent and credible polls, the AP then cherrypicks interviews from voters who are "frustrated" at both parties. Who's to say that their views represent the public? According to the Washington Post, people are angry at the Republicans and plan on putting the Democrats in charge of Congress (and favor them on basically every issue). So the AP just goes around interviewing people and reporting the views of people disillusioned with party politics. One of my pet peeves is when reporters do "voter interviews" and try to pass them off as representing views of the general public. Do a poll!!! That's what they're for. Next, they try to say that "the Democratic Party's approval rating is no better than Bush's." As evidence they cite a poll saying that 84 percent of people "believe lawmakers in Washington put partisan politics above all else." NO WAY!!!! Wow, what a revelation. I'm shocked, shocked and outraged that partisan leaders in Washington are putting partisan politics above all else. That's it...I'm off to Canada. But back to their original assertion, that Democrats are doing no better than Bush. The Washington Post poll says 55% are voting Democratic. Bush's approval rating is 38% and Congress' is 35%. The idea that people think equally poorly of Democrats and Republicans is an RNC talking point. So the AP of course, reports an RNC talking point as fact, but of course, since it's an RNC talking point, when you look at the evidence, you find that it is false. But when you're a rectal journalist, facts are an inconvenience that should not be given the time of day.
Then the article tries to raise the prospect of a third party candidacy for president because people are so "disillusioned" with politics. Any polling to support that? Of course not. Just a few beltway "pundits" giving the AP the quotes they want so all their friends will see their name in the newspaper the next day. Then they raise the prospect of a "maverick" like Powell or McCain riding to the rescue of America as a third party candidate (McCain's not a maverick, but who cares if you're a rectal journalist). Anyone who knows the slightest thing about American politics knows that every aspect of our political system makes it impossible for third parties to survive. Just look at the 1912 election: when you split your vote, the other guy wins, even if they're in the minority. So pretty soon you figure out that you should join like minded parties into one, and you end up with a two party system. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt was the most serious third party candidate and he couldn't even come close to winning. Ross Perot, for all the votes he got, could not get a single electoral vote. When it comes down to it, people will not vote for a third party and will choose one or the other of the viable parties. However, the maverick riding to the rescue of America and overturning partisan politics has been a dream of rectal journalists all across America. In every presidential election, they build up a joke candidate as the "maverick" who is going to change everything. It was McCain in 2000, Tsongas and Perot in 1992, etc. The maverick is usually a joke who could never be president, but as good rectal journalists, inconvenient realities like that are no obstacle to them. The mighty maverick of the media's creation comes crashing down when voters get to have their say, yet this myth stays on in the world of rectal journalism.
This AP article is only one of many pieces of rectal journalism that we all encounter on a daily basis. I'm sure that there are many more that have been run today, but this is just one example. Rectal journalism is a convenient way for a reporter to fall back on the CW in Washington without actually investigating to find the facts. In the future, it would help if there was a rule that in order for a journalist to make an assertion, they must back it up with fact. So if they say "Americans think that..." they ought to cite a poll, preferrably more than one, to support that position. And this poll should be recent, no more than a month old. Trying to cite a 4-month old pre-Abramoff poll, as the AP did, to show people are mad at both parties is not credible. One of the things you learn in school is that if you make a claim, you have to back it up. Journalists seem to have forgotten that. Journalists never get held accountable for sloppy reporting as one would in academia. Journalists have the obligation to report the truth to the public, no matter how much politicians in Washington may protest. Over the Bush presidency, reproters have abdicated this responsibility and turned instead to rectal journalism. Whenever you see statements like "Republicans are doing poorly but Democrats can't take advantage of it" or "people think both parties are equally corrupt" that's rectal journalism. Right now we have a media that is lazy and uninterested in reporting the truth and it's time Democrats called them on that instead of letting the "liberal media bias" nonsense go unchallenged.