The Associated Press' sad, new beat
Last week I told you how surprised I was when an Associated Press "analysis" piece published locally in the Albuquerque Journal on Aug. 24 resembled a John McCain press release. It was like finding out that your churchy maiden aunt pushes cocaine -- the AP, sometimes dull, was above suspicion, its stock in trade the straight scoop. This week, after hours of googling, I can report the joke’s on me -- I was ignorant. I had no idea there’s a new AP.
Here is some of what I have learned after visiting Editor and Publisher, the Huffington Post, the Washington Monthly and, most importantly, Politico.com.
First, it’s not just about Ron Fournier, author of the questionable story. It’s also about the reporters in the AP Washington bureau he leads.
Secondly -- and here’s where I was way out of touch -- their stories reflect AP’s considered new approach to political reporting.
Specifically, the old conventions of news writing no longer apply. Reporters may call it as they see it, personally, with emotion. Which may explain, from a Fournier lead paragraph in January 2008, "Obama is bordering on arrogance."
Back on July 14, Michael Calderone reported the AP turnabout at length for Politico.com. He wrote that Fournier rejects the old, balanced approach because that’s "what prevented the media from challenging the Bush administration more aggressively on the Iraq war and other issues."
"Others warn," Calderone continues, "that what Fournier and other proponents see as truth-telling can easily bleed into opinionizing -- exactly the opposite of the AP’s mission of ‘delivering fast, unbiased news’."
Of the Fournier approach, James Taranto, Wall Street Journal Best of the Web columnist and a frequent critic of what he sees as AP’s liberal bias, told Calderone, "It seems to me there’s a conscious effort to inject bias in the story, though obviously Fournier would see it differently. It’s a conscious move in the direction of advocacy journalism."
Significantly, the AP’s big brass is defending Fournier against criticism from liberal blogs.
So there we have it. What I stumbled on is bigger than bias, it’s the Associated Press’s reinvention of self.
Understand -- I don’t think Fournier is entirely wrong. Journalism does need to improve upon that old "objective" model. "He said, she said" doesn’t help readers sort out truths. In fact, to the extent we pretend to objectivity (impossible, except for the gods), we distort reality. But what are the new rules?
The Fournier "analysis" that grabbed my attention passed off opinion as fact. And AP writer Tom Raum adduced as evidence that McCain and the President aren’t very close on policy -- get this -- that McCain avoids Bush on the campaign trail. Silliness. (The story, in the Albuquerque Journal August 22, cited some real differences, too.)
And the AP’s new beat goes on. After Barack Obama’s acceptance speech, which most commentators (including neo-con Bill Kristol and conservative Pat Buchanan) agreed contained specifics, AP’s Charles Babington wrote it was lacking in specifics.
So where does this leave us? Newspapers and broadcasters can and do select what they use from the Associated Press. They can edit, too. So the buck stops with the editors at our local news businesses. I guess they know what I didn’t, that they can no longer assume AP copy is the straight scoop.
How unfortunate! Thanks to the Web and cable, we have a surfeit of opinion. What’s in short supply is what AP seems to be turning its back on -- trustworthy basic information. Makes me sad. Probably makes a lot of AP staffers sad, too.
CATEGORIES IN THIS STORY:
About Arthur Alpert
Once upon a time, Arthur Alpert was a newspaperman (N.Y. World-Telegram & Sun), TV producer-writer-host (news, documentaries), magazine contributor (New Republic, Washington Monthly) and journalism teacher. In New Mexico, he was news director at KGGM-TV, editor of Prime Time monthly and columnist...
Comments:
Posted 09/05/2008 08:37 with
I think the new AP approach is indicative of what’s happening with the media in general. Fewer and fewer people are turning to the “news” to get information. Instead, they rely on the news with a twist—it needs to come from their particular bias as consumers—so that our country will end up being even more polarized and less inclined or able to understand diverse viewpoints.
I know I’ve lost faith in reporting overall and go to both “liberal” blogs and at least three different newspapers before trying to form an opinion.
Fair, balanced, unbiased —all of these noble words seem to no longer be the main goal.
Posted 09/05/2008 11:10 with
I agree with the complaint – that the AP no longer cares about an objective facts but instead presents subjective opinions and pretends they are objective.
What surprises me is that you have only now caught onto this! The polls that came out, what, a week ago (?) showed that (this is from memory, so don’t quote me on it) about 50% of Americans believe that the media in general is rooting for Obama, about 8% thought the same about McKain, and only thirty-something percent thought that the media was actually being “fair.”
Welcome to enlightenment!
Posted 09/05/2008 13:12 with
Arthur! Wonderful post.
I can’t recall who said it on a chat show a couple of weeks ago, but his prediction that one of the aftermaths of this campaign season is we will look back at 2008 as “The Year Journalism Died.”
I expect this to be a rising tide of opinion as the end nears.
PLEASE stay on this. You are, to my mind, the one who can lean on this credibly.
We are yet again at one of those points in the business and for a fantastically interesting read on the idea of “objectivity,” The Columbia Journalism Review did a cover story called, “Re-thinking Objectivity,” (in ‘03!) that is a must read for news nerds. Note the second section “Tripping Toward The Truth,” on the history of how being objective has bobbed and weaved through journalistic history.
It’s a primer for what is happening now.
http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/4/objective-cunningham…
Posted 09/05/2008 19:54 with
Pari: Thank you, first, for putting me on the road to the AP story last week with the link to mediamatters.com. Re your comment above: yes, it’s tricky figuring out what’s really going on. I prefer those who put their biases up front. And like you, I find it helps to get information from more than one place. Also, to keep myself honest, I consult sources who start from different premises. (Not too often, though, for fear they’ll pull me over to the Dark Side!)
markp: You are quite right. I was slow to catch on to the new AP. Mea culpa. But polls showing what most Americans think of “the media” don’t impress me. First, because the polls and the Americans both accept the existence of one thing called “the media.” I don’t.
Look: Fox works for the GOP. ABC, NBC and CBS seem confused and fearful except in their relentless pursuit of mediocrity. MSNBC is liberal but employs Pat Buchanan. CNN will do almost anything for better ratings. PBS science and documentary programs are dynamite, but its news is “on one hand this, on the other, that, time will tell.” The New York Times often is liberal – whatever that means – but it allowed Judith Miller to recycle White House disinformation on Iraq. Also, the Times hired Bill Kristol, the brilliant neo-con who urged that we ignore the silly idea Shiites and Sunnis might dislike each other. Oh, and talk radio is right-wing politics or religion of the “Jesus hates” variety. And I haven’t mentioned national magazines or local papers or blogs or the New Mexico Independent. My point – it’s complicated.
Gene Grant: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I will keep noodling the issues. I do remember that CJR issue and we certainly should continue to rethink objectivity. But with or without the word, I figure journalism must always demand accuracy and fairness.
Arthur Alpert
Posted 09/05/2008 23:19 with
And in mentioning Bill Kristol, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol, I think it only fair to readers to point out that this gentleman, a member of our mainstream media, had a tangible stake in the Iraq war… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_a_new_american_c…
Posted 09/08/2008 09:06 with
The AP began to change when Lou Boccardi retired as president and Tom Curley, formerly of USA Today, took his place. The board changed. There was a major reshuffling in New York, many excellent bureau chiefs were pushed out or left due to state consolidation, and the Washington bureau changed completely. Interestingly, the AP is losing membership and some members are complaining loudly about Fournier. The old objective AP is no more and its members have to make a decision whether or not to stay with that news service or look elsewhere.
Posted 09/08/2008 09:21 with
I forgot to add a comment on “objectivity.” Many people don’t realize that the AP is a nonprofit membership organization, a news service. I always counted on AP objectivity. If I want commentary I will read a columnist or an editorial page—otherwise, give me straight news and I will make up my own mind. When the AP starts to blend reporting with commentary then newspaper readers, a decided minority these days, have lost the ability to read straight news reporting. Bloomberg is now attracting highly competent reporters and editors and expanding their news service. With Bloomberg, the LA Times, the NY Times and McClachy providing straight news reporting to their members newspapers should reconsider their dependence on the AP.
Posted 09/08/2008 15:39 with
Thanks, KateStone, for dating AP’s transformation to Lou Boccardi’s resignation as president Since he quit in 2003, we now know exactly how slow I was to pick up on the story. Further, since Lou and I sat together as reporters in the World-Telegram & Sun newsroom in …well, er…a few years back, we also are reminded that I’m ancient. Thanks, I needed that.
Arthur Alpert