Let’s start small.  A recent article on the national health care debate posted to the trade website, www.insurancejournal.com, included this eye-catching bit of business:  “The 2,074-page health care bill includes a range of items that some say could be time bombs in waiting for some agencies – or new opportunities” for insurance agents and brokers.

The non-attribution attribution (as in, who the heck is the some who said?) is a useful tool for jamming a lot of meaning into a small phrase.  But it is also a way to veil intent and, ultimately, undermine credibility.  That may not be too much of a problem for a journal targeting a single trade, but “some say” is getting a lot of airtime on a bigger stage.

In fact, if you asked Google to search for the two phrases “some say” and “White House press” you’d get 242,000 results.  It is a phrase and its variations that are in particularly active rotation at the daily briefings held by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.  Note this bit from the November 6 session:

“Q:  The President in the Rose Garden said that the unexpectedly big jump in unemployment past the 10 percent mark was sobering, and he also listed some ideas that he said his economic team was considering for further job creation. The question that some economists are asking is, is this really enough? And some say it’s not, but there needs to be a second stimulus program of some sort. Is there any consideration going to be given to a second stimulus package, or is the President ruling that out?”

How much credence should we give the question?  The answer?  And what of the ultimate report?  Without attribution, it is hard to confidently know if the problem is real and the report meaningful.

Ten years ago, author, editor and media lightning rod Steven Brill tried to shine a light on the name and nature of journalism’s sources when he launched “Brill’s Content.” Three years later, after creating a stir over the unsavory use of agenda-driven, off-the-record interviews, the magazine died and the practice lived on…and on.

Visit the New York Times and you’ll find this in a story about health care costs and small business:  “Some say the threat of an overhaul may be at least part of the reason.”

Go to The Economist and you’ll find this in a story about the Muslim finance market:  “Some say Paris could take 10% of the global market by 2020.”

Then swing by Fox News and you’ll find this in a story about President Obama’s Afghanistan war deliberations:  “As President Obama and his war council search for the most effective military and political strategy in Afghanistan, some are questioning whether the lengthy process is playing right into the hands of the Taliban.”

In the end, whether left, right or middle, the use of “some say” doesn’t inform, it only reinforces what we already thought.  That’s not news, it’s advocacy.

Share

It was just a week ago that White House Communications Director Anita Dunn declared that Fox News was the research arm of the Republican Party and that it would now be treated as the opposition.

In the week since there have been predictable stories.  The Administration is setting a dangerous precedent.  President Obama has more important matters.  Fox’s ratings are up.   Never pick a fight with the media.

This last storyline was the subject of David Carr’s column in the NY Times’ “Week in Review.”  In “The Battle is Joined; Now What?”, Carr catalogs past Presidential attempts to confront media criticism.  He concludes that “trading punched with cable shouters seems to be a fit too common.”

He is missing a point or two.  So I told him in this email just sent:

Mr. Carr,

Your FOX/Obama “tale of the tape” ignores three excellent reasons for the Administration to pick this particular battle.

I could add a fourth, too.  In the current media landscape, it is no longer a problem to pick a fight with someone, as used to be said, buys ink by the barrel.  The media landscape is so fragmented, no matter who is buying the ink, there is a lot more being bought by others.

Share