terça-feira, agosto 24, 2004
Editors Grapple With How to Cover Swift Boat Controversy
By Joe Strupp
NEW YORK - As the John Kerry swift boat controversy navigates itself from the shoreline of the 2004 presidential campaign into the mainstream, newspapers face a dilemma of how to report on the veterans group attacking the Democratic nominee's record without giving them undue credibility or blowing the issue out of proportion.
Alison Mitchell, deputy national editor for The New York Times (Click for QuikCap), points to the changing media landscape and its impact on what newspapers choose to cover. "I'm not sure that in an era of no-cable television we would even have looked into it," she said.
But Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. said newspapers can still drive their own agenda. "I don't think we are lessening at all our judgment of the news," he told E&P. "There is much more media, but we still judge for ourselves which facts we report in The Washington Post."
In the past week, Page One stories have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today and other dailies both scrutinizing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and its accusations against Kerry, while also reporting on the effect the group's advertising is having on the Democrat's strategy.
Since Kerry chose to alter his policy and take the group's criticism head-on, editors contend that made them ripe for front-page coverage.
"Kerry has made his Vietnam service a centerpiece of the Democratic National Convention and the Swift Boat Veterans came out right after that," said Lee Horwich, politics editor at USA Today, which ran a story about the veterans group, and inconsistencies in its accounts, on Aug. 16. "There has been doubt cast on some of their charges and we have reported it. I think scrutiny of the accuracy of the charges has been the thrust of the coverage."
James O'Shea, managing editor of the Chicago Tribune, agreed. But he said the critical approach may have been a bit late, considering that the Swift Boat Veterans ads came out two weeks ago. "I don't think there has been enough scrutiny until now," he said. "Prior to this, we weren't giving it enough attention."
But O'Shea also pointed out that giving the anti-Kerry veterans too much attention, in an attempt to hold them accountable, creates a situation of ignoring other issues. He said this may be an instance of a growing problem for newspapers in the expanding media world -- being forced to follow a story they might not consider worthwhile because other news outlets have made it an issue (in this case, Fox News and talk radio).
"There are too many places for people to get information," O'Shea said. "I don't think newspapers can be the gatekeepers anymore -- to say this is wrong and we will ignore it. Now we have to say this is wrong, and here is why."
Downie said he believes the Swift Boat Veterans coverage had been fair and properly scrutinizing. "We have printed the facts and some of those facts have undermined Kerry's opponents," he said. "We are not judging the credibility of Kerry or the (Swift Boat) Veterans, we just print the facts."
He defended a lengthy Post story that ran Sunday which appeared to give equal credibility to both Kerry's version of the events in Vietnam, which is supported by his crewmates and largely backed up by a paper trail, and the Swift Boat Veterans, despite the fact that previous stories in the Post and the New York Times had debunked many of the group's accounts.
Michael Tomaskey, on The American Prospect's Web site, took issue with Downie's decision today: "The Washington Post should not even be running such a story ... in the first place. Len Downie and the paper's other editors would undoubtedly argue that the story represents the Post's tenacity for getting to the truth, without fear or favor. But what the story actually proves is that a bunch of liars who have in the past contradicted their own current statements can, if their lies are outrageous enough and if they have enough money, control the media agenda and get even the most respected media outlets in the country to focus on picayune 'truths' while missing the larger story."
The swift boat controversy and its coverage have also provided fodder for a number of ombudsmen during the past few days. Paul Moore at The Sun in Baltimore cited the need for reporting to include all aspects of the veterans group's activities. "News stories about this group are legitimate, but because the group's televised ads have been paid for by supporters of President Bush, the partisan nature of the material is unmistakable," he wrote.
Dennis Ryerson, editor of The Indianapolis Star, also weighed in with a column about the challenges of the story. "The media are caught in the middle," he opined. "We are often criticized for covering the noise rather than the light, the political infighting as opposed to the substance of major issues. I think we need to cover both."
Finally, Sherrie Mazingo of the Star Tribune in Minneapolis wrote that readers were getting overwhelmed by some of the coverage. "The claims and counter-claims ... have become a significant distraction," she said.
Joe Strupp (jstrupp@editorandpublisher.com) is senior editor for E&P.
NEW YORK - As the John Kerry swift boat controversy navigates itself from the shoreline of the 2004 presidential campaign into the mainstream, newspapers face a dilemma of how to report on the veterans group attacking the Democratic nominee's record without giving them undue credibility or blowing the issue out of proportion.
Alison Mitchell, deputy national editor for The New York Times (Click for QuikCap), points to the changing media landscape and its impact on what newspapers choose to cover. "I'm not sure that in an era of no-cable television we would even have looked into it," she said.
But Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. said newspapers can still drive their own agenda. "I don't think we are lessening at all our judgment of the news," he told E&P. "There is much more media, but we still judge for ourselves which facts we report in The Washington Post."
In the past week, Page One stories have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today and other dailies both scrutinizing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and its accusations against Kerry, while also reporting on the effect the group's advertising is having on the Democrat's strategy.
Since Kerry chose to alter his policy and take the group's criticism head-on, editors contend that made them ripe for front-page coverage.
"Kerry has made his Vietnam service a centerpiece of the Democratic National Convention and the Swift Boat Veterans came out right after that," said Lee Horwich, politics editor at USA Today, which ran a story about the veterans group, and inconsistencies in its accounts, on Aug. 16. "There has been doubt cast on some of their charges and we have reported it. I think scrutiny of the accuracy of the charges has been the thrust of the coverage."
James O'Shea, managing editor of the Chicago Tribune, agreed. But he said the critical approach may have been a bit late, considering that the Swift Boat Veterans ads came out two weeks ago. "I don't think there has been enough scrutiny until now," he said. "Prior to this, we weren't giving it enough attention."
But O'Shea also pointed out that giving the anti-Kerry veterans too much attention, in an attempt to hold them accountable, creates a situation of ignoring other issues. He said this may be an instance of a growing problem for newspapers in the expanding media world -- being forced to follow a story they might not consider worthwhile because other news outlets have made it an issue (in this case, Fox News and talk radio).
"There are too many places for people to get information," O'Shea said. "I don't think newspapers can be the gatekeepers anymore -- to say this is wrong and we will ignore it. Now we have to say this is wrong, and here is why."
Downie said he believes the Swift Boat Veterans coverage had been fair and properly scrutinizing. "We have printed the facts and some of those facts have undermined Kerry's opponents," he said. "We are not judging the credibility of Kerry or the (Swift Boat) Veterans, we just print the facts."
He defended a lengthy Post story that ran Sunday which appeared to give equal credibility to both Kerry's version of the events in Vietnam, which is supported by his crewmates and largely backed up by a paper trail, and the Swift Boat Veterans, despite the fact that previous stories in the Post and the New York Times had debunked many of the group's accounts.
Michael Tomaskey, on The American Prospect's Web site, took issue with Downie's decision today: "The Washington Post should not even be running such a story ... in the first place. Len Downie and the paper's other editors would undoubtedly argue that the story represents the Post's tenacity for getting to the truth, without fear or favor. But what the story actually proves is that a bunch of liars who have in the past contradicted their own current statements can, if their lies are outrageous enough and if they have enough money, control the media agenda and get even the most respected media outlets in the country to focus on picayune 'truths' while missing the larger story."
The swift boat controversy and its coverage have also provided fodder for a number of ombudsmen during the past few days. Paul Moore at The Sun in Baltimore cited the need for reporting to include all aspects of the veterans group's activities. "News stories about this group are legitimate, but because the group's televised ads have been paid for by supporters of President Bush, the partisan nature of the material is unmistakable," he wrote.
Dennis Ryerson, editor of The Indianapolis Star, also weighed in with a column about the challenges of the story. "The media are caught in the middle," he opined. "We are often criticized for covering the noise rather than the light, the political infighting as opposed to the substance of major issues. I think we need to cover both."
Finally, Sherrie Mazingo of the Star Tribune in Minneapolis wrote that readers were getting overwhelmed by some of the coverage. "The claims and counter-claims ... have become a significant distraction," she said.
Joe Strupp (jstrupp@editorandpublisher.com) is senior editor for E&P.
# posted by Rui Ferreira @ 12:25 da manhã 
