Letting the (duly arranged) facts speak for themselves
This AP story lead by Nedra Pickler is composed entirely in the language of facts, the natural idiom of the modern professional journalist:
"Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to change the government's formula for giving states money for homeland security, with the early voting states getting a little extra."
This lead is also potentially overly interpretive, highly selective and loaded. Obama says he wants to redistribute federal homeland security funds to base them more on risk assessments (rather than whatever they are based on now, apparently late primary states). But that is not a salient enough point for the lead. No, the only thing the lead says is that the new formula would result in "a little extra" for the early primary states.
But still, wow, is that true? Is Obama really drawing up plans that just happen to favor early primary states? Why would land-locked Iowa face more risk than dozens of other states? Is Obama being as blatant as that? No, the redistribution guidelines are "also a recommendation from the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks."
I understand that the AP reporter is constrained by the norms of professional journalism, but really, whatever! Read between the lines, people, the truth obvious enough: The members of the 9/11 commission are running for president, and Obama is stealing their thunder. "Audacity of hope" my ass! The only thing audacious is Obama's pretense that he is any less scheming than the rest of our political class.
And thank goodness for the oligopolists at the AP, exercising their vast reach with the profoundest solemnity of purpose. We can't leave our democracy in the hands of loose cannons such as the Union Leader (see below). Moreover, with this Obama scoop, the AP may have done the public more service than is already apparent. Since the consciousness of the modern journalist is enveloped by events of no older vintage than a week (9/11 commission, when the hell did somebody find the time for that?), it seems possible that these facts about the funding consequences of Obama's plan were brought to the reporter's attention by somebody working for one of the other presidential campaigns. And that's how the public can win twice: Duly arranging facts as suggested by an unmentioned campaign staffer is a fantastic way to cultivate a source for later in the campaign, thus laying the groundwork for future revelations vital to public understanding of the deeper meaning of electoral events.
"Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to change the government's formula for giving states money for homeland security, with the early voting states getting a little extra."
This lead is also potentially overly interpretive, highly selective and loaded. Obama says he wants to redistribute federal homeland security funds to base them more on risk assessments (rather than whatever they are based on now, apparently late primary states). But that is not a salient enough point for the lead. No, the only thing the lead says is that the new formula would result in "a little extra" for the early primary states.
But still, wow, is that true? Is Obama really drawing up plans that just happen to favor early primary states? Why would land-locked Iowa face more risk than dozens of other states? Is Obama being as blatant as that? No, the redistribution guidelines are "also a recommendation from the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks."
I understand that the AP reporter is constrained by the norms of professional journalism, but really, whatever! Read between the lines, people, the truth obvious enough: The members of the 9/11 commission are running for president, and Obama is stealing their thunder. "Audacity of hope" my ass! The only thing audacious is Obama's pretense that he is any less scheming than the rest of our political class.
And thank goodness for the oligopolists at the AP, exercising their vast reach with the profoundest solemnity of purpose. We can't leave our democracy in the hands of loose cannons such as the Union Leader (see below). Moreover, with this Obama scoop, the AP may have done the public more service than is already apparent. Since the consciousness of the modern journalist is enveloped by events of no older vintage than a week (9/11 commission, when the hell did somebody find the time for that?), it seems possible that these facts about the funding consequences of Obama's plan were brought to the reporter's attention by somebody working for one of the other presidential campaigns. And that's how the public can win twice: Duly arranging facts as suggested by an unmentioned campaign staffer is a fantastic way to cultivate a source for later in the campaign, thus laying the groundwork for future revelations vital to public understanding of the deeper meaning of electoral events.
posted by Ben at 12:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home