Political journalism’s ‘otherhandedness’
Dear Editor:
Re: “Truth Squad” [Oct. 11, 2004].
The story about the accuracy of some of John Kerry’s and George Bush’s claims at Friday’s debate would have been more accurately titled “Classic and Infuriating Example of Journalistic Otherhandedness.”
Like so many other journalists covering the Bush-Kerry race, the Truth Squad reporters mistook comparative equivalence (“on the one hand, Bush misrepresented this, on the other hand Kerry misrepresented that”) for due journalistic diligence. But the ethos of journalistic fairness and objectivity does not mean that reporters’ work is done if they line up a misleading or false statement by one candidate alongside a false statement by his opponent.
Since journalists’ first commitment is (or ought to be) to seek truth and report it, reporters have an obligation not just to list misrepresentations but also to discern the nature and magnitude of each candidate’s inaccuracies in relation to one another. The Bush campaign has regularly and eagerly resorted to lies, misrepresentations and distortions (most often by removing any semblance of context from its attacks) in a manner that far exceeds anything Kerry has done.
As Mark Halperin, an ABC news executive, put it recently in a memo to his staff: “Kerry distorts, takes out of context and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.” Meanwhile, Bush’s reelection bid pivots on specious name calling (“liberal,” “flip-flopper,” “indecisive”) and blatant lies about Kerry’s past (cf. The Swift Boat fiction or the “most liberal senator” lie).
These lies continue to circulate as debatable claims even though they are demonstrably false largely because reporters from Fox News to the New York Times have for the most part domesticated Bush’s lies by couching them in the euphemisms of this morally reprehensible “otherhandedness.” Bush or his surrogates may make up fantasies about John Kerry’s past from whole cloth, but on the other hand Kerry once misstated the cost of a public works program over ten years, so they both misrepresent things.
This just won’t do. As Halperin wrote, journalists “have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn’t mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides “equally” accountable when the facts don’t warrant that.”
-Douglas Harrison
Graduate School, Arts & Sciences
Wasn’t there something better to cover?
Dear Editor:
Re: “Police shut down Row after brawl” [Oct. 11, 2004].
Why was the feature story on the front page of this Monday’s edition about a fight on fraternity row? Didn’t anything interesting go on at here that might be considered a little more newsworthy than a fight? We had a presidential debate here, our school was the center of the media and political universe for 24 hours, Chingy performed here at an MTV-sponsored concert, Wash U students were interviewed on a variety of TV programs, and you put a fraternity fight on the front page.
I am not saying that the fraternities are innocent victims in this whole situation; however, it is fair for me to assume that events more deserving of the cover story did indeed occur this weekend. I just want to know why it appears as if you ‘have it out’ for Greek organizations on campus, because it’s obvious that this is the case.
-Josh Stein
Class of 2006
We rocked the vote
Dear Editor:
Re: “Chingy headlines Rock the Vote concert” [Oct. 11, 2004].
We want to thank the campus for coming out to support the Rock the Vote concert that was held in the Quad on Saturday. We were excited that the day had finally arrived, and we were happy to provide this unique opportunity to our community. We hope students enjoyed themselves!
As the Student Life article stated, students found out about Chingy’s performance only two hours after we did. We were really happy he was there, and we hope students had fun listening to this local favorite as well as to all of the other talented artists that care enough about the cause to travel around with the Rock the Vote tour and encourage us to get out to the polls and vote.
Most importantly, we hope that amidst the music and giveaways, attendees were able to learn more about the issues that matter this year and make some decisions about where you stand as we head into the last weeks before the election. We hope that students will take the excitement from the concert and turn it into conversations with their friends, acquaintances, and classmates about the importance of voting.
If we went out and voted with the same force that the 65+ voting bloc does, politicians would have to listen to us. They would have to start talking about social security, civil rights, tuition costs, the environment and other issues that matter so much to us but barely get any playing time in events like the debate we held here last Friday. We believe that all 18-24-year-olds have an amazing opportunity in this election year, and we hope that every student will take the excitement of last week and make a pledge to get themselves and 10 of their closest friends out to the polls on Nov. 2.
Please contact us with any questions about voting at [email protected].
-Teresa Sullivan, Project Democracy
Josh Gantz, Rock the Vote
Don’t divide U.S.
Dear Editor:
Re: “Lacking backup, the lone ranger gets defeated” [Oct. 6, 2004].
Dissent is an integral part of our society, however only when it is accompanied with respect can it be dignified.ÿI come from a place where the office of the presidency is held in high regard and our soldiers are given the most admiration.
Clearly from a different background, Zach Goodwin, author of that article, uses arguments against the president that are intolerable and deplorable. Instead of exemplifying the civil and considerate student body of Washington University, Goodwin show us as a population of caustic and petty government hating students. ÿ
His case that the president of the United States has not changed his arguments since the inception of war in Iraq is ignorant. There is no need for a change in rhetoric by the Bush administration. Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, Iraq failed to comply with 16 UN resolutions issued against it. That infraction enough is reason for military action. Moreover, international intelligence agencies led the world, not just President Bush, to believe that Saddam (the same man who used nerve gas on his own constituency) was preparing to produce his own weapons of mass destruction.
Hussein was very clearly connected to terrorism, although maybe not Al Qaeda. It is known that the families of homicide bombers living in Israel received a check and a letter of congratulations from Hussein after their grizzly missions were completed. It was our duty to depose this lunatic.
Had the Allies taken the same initiative in 1936 era Germany, imagine the world we would be living in today. The world is now a safer place. The terrorist nations of the world see that there is a country willing to combat them. Mumar Kadafi, the maniacal ruler of Libya has agreed to relinquish his nuclear arms programs. What more justification do we need?
To say that we are no safer as a country is a lie. To say that the president was acting “monarchial” was trivial. This is a man who faces criticism not only abroad, but also from his own people, those who he is attempting to protect. At a time when we are constantly being battered by enemies abroad, why should partisan propaganda divide us at home as well?ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
-Jake Laughner
Class of 2008