CBS-2 Goes 'Behind the Scenes' With Sloppy Reporting
By Jon Whiten
Oh boy, television news is a fun place. Last night, New York City's CBS affiliate (CBS-2) gave us a piece by political reporter Marcia Kramer that was fascinating, but probably not in the way the network planned. It was a "Behind the Scenes" look at NJ's Senate race -- as anchor Jim Rosenfeld said in the piece's intro, "politics can be a dirty affair, but it's rare for the public to see exactly how one candidate tries to gain advantage over another. Tonight we take you behind the scenes to see 'The Anatomy of a Smear.'"
These types of pieces have become more common over the past decade, both on television news and in print, as reporters have finally begun to timidly grapple with political professionalism, spin from all sides, and very skilled news management from political campaigns. These segments are designed to lay the truth out on the table, in instances where one side is lying, rather than simply repeating that lie in the common "he-said, she-said" model of poltical reporting. In other words, this sub-genre of political reporting introduces real critical analysis into the reporting process, something folks of all stripes can agree is a welcome addition.
So when this analysis is faulty, filled with holes, and leads the viewer to conclusions unsupported by facts, such as CBS-2's "Anatomy of a Smear" was, it can be even more damaging than the spin and untruth in a so-called "regular" news segment. After all, this is where the public comes to see the truth laid bare, as it were.
Kramer's report is cleverly divided up into "steps" of the smear, which is helpful for our purposes here as well -- it will enable us to dissemble it one piece at a time.
Step One: "The Gauntlet"
As Kramer says, "It began with a campaign dirty trick. Republican Senate candidate Tom Kean Jr., forced to run a gauntlet of Bob Menendez supporters when he arrived at CBS-2 Saturday to tape a campaign debate." (Emphasis added)
Poor Tom, isn't it just awful having to walk past about a dozen citizens who support another candidate? I'm not sure when turning out supporters to a public sidewalk, in relation to a campaign event, has become a "dirty trick," but it's a good thing I know now. I can already see the next "dirty trick" Kramer may uncover: turning out voters to the polls. Oh, the horrors of democracy.
It's also a bit unclear to me how these dozen or so people constituted a "gauntlet." I am pretty sure Kramer doesn't mean "a dress glove extending above the wrist." Nor do I think she could have meant "an open challenge (as to combat)" -- I don't think the Menendez supporters had swords or other such weaponry.
So what Kramer must have been getting at was this definition of "gauntlet": "A double file of men armed with weapons with which to strike at an individual who is made to run between them." In Kean Jr.'s case, the weapons were chants of "We Want Bob!", and said "double file" was the aforementioned dozen or so people. That's some good use of some fancy language, Ms. Kramer, but unfortunately a tad bit loaded. Onward!
Step Two: "The Attack"
Kramer says step two was "the attack on Tom Kean [Jr.]'s position on Iraq during the debate." Here, CBS-2 shows a clip from said debate, where Menendez brings up Kean Jr's refusal to answer some of the questions posed to both candidates by Military Families Speak Out (MFSO). (For background, we've got the questions, answers and non-answers here.)
Again, I'm not sure how unfair it is for a candidate to continue calling out his opponent, not only for his continued support of a war, but for his refusal to answer some basic questions about his positions on the war by people with family members either at war, or unfortunately, lost to the war. But what Kramer is doing here is setting up what ends up being the theme, so let's just move on.
Step Three: "The Set-Up"
"Step Three: Sneaking Joanne Sohl, the mother of a soldier serving in Iraq, into a post-debate press conference to confront Tom Kean [Jr.]," Kramer says.
I guess Kramer has a problem with confrontation and emotion, as many political reporters seem to -- first the "gauntlet" and now this. Now, I don't know what the rules were or what the security was for the post-debate press conference, but if a public citizen is able to sneak into a press conference, and ask some real questions for a change, more power to them. The press conference, while very obviously utilitarian and in some ways necessary, is the biggest single framer of discourse and filter of information in today's press. What's wrong with expanding its scope, if only for a minute?
Further, Kramer offers absolutely zero proof, not even strong circumstantial evidence, to link the Menendez campaign to Sohl's confrontation of Kean Jr. But, oh wait, I guess that's what she tackles next.
Step Four: "The Tracker" and Step Five: "The Sting"
In steps four and five, Kramer seems to think she's nailed it: "Menendez staffer Patrick McKenneth tapes the confrontation as a Kean Jr. staffer moves between Ms. Sohl and [State] Senator Kean [Jr.]." Then, she brings to our attention "this press release, headlined 'Caught on Tape: Kean Jr. Running from Military Mother, Ducking Questions About War in Iraq.'"
I haven't been able to track down this press release as of yet, but she doesn't say that it is even from the Menendez campaign, which is what is clearly implied. If it is not, why is it in the story? UPDATE: A KIND SOUL HAS FORWARDED ME THE RELEASE, IT IS FROM MENENDEZ. THANKS. And even if it is, I don't see how this, in and of itself, is a problem. And as for the videotaping, Menendez's people are proving to be very smart with technology, taping nearly every Kean Jr. appearance, just waiting for a YouTube-worthy moment. Which brings me to the next step.
Step Six: "Double Gotcha" and Step Seven: "The Payoff"
"Double gotcha" simply notes that the Menendez video was released on YouTube yesterday. Again, smart campaigning -- hiring an experienced blogger (Scott Shields) is really setting the Menendez campaign way ahead of Kean Jr. on the Web and tech front. This brings us to a question: Why could Ms. Kramer be upset, or see "dirty tricks," in someone shooting a video and putting it online. After all, doesn't that keep with the whole purpose of this and other "Behind the Scenes" segments? The Menendez video is just taking a different, and more clearly partisan, angle.
"The payoff," according to Kramer: "The group, Military Families of New Jersey [actually Military Families Speak Out, as clearly shown in the visual under her narration], holds a press conference today to bash Kean [Jr.] and praise Menendez."
It's hard to imagine that MFSO could do anything other than criticize a candidate who has refused to answer their very serious -- and very personal -- questions about the war.
Kramer ends the piece by going to the old TV news standby -- the dueling quotes without enough context. First she quotes the Kean Jr. campaign as saying Menendez was "a political thug who employs Hudson County boss-style tactics in an election." Leaving the Menendez campaign's response as, "New Jersey voters have a right to know where Tom Kean [Jr.] stands on the War in Iraq." So, in her weak conclusion, Kramer lets Kean Jr.'s main talking points get through -- "Hudson County," "political thug," etc. -- while using Menendez's response to illustrate the campaign "defending the move," in essence confirming that they were indeed behind the whole thing, including getting Sohl into the press conference, and, presumably, orchestrating her confrontation of Kean Jr.
But the problem is, Kramer never connects the dots, which are all over the map here. She is accusing an independent organization that does not even endorse candidates of colluding with a candidate, but this is unclear and shaky, at the very best. Where's the evidence?
That this sloppy reporting made its way on to the air in the guise of a sort of "behind the scenes" expose or fact check of a "smear" is disgusting.
Postscript: A note on language:
You may have noticed a lot of brackets in the quotes lifted from the CBS-2 segment. These were my additions, to correct incorrect language put forth in the story. "Tom Kean" is not the candidate for Senate. "Tom Kean Jr." is. "Tom Kean" may flow better, and it may be the shorthand that the press is using to refer to "Tom Kean Jr.", but it is not true. What's more, it bolsters the Kean Jr. campaign by reinforcing one of the few things that has kept his campaign competitive thus far -- his father's name. Am I being nitpicky? Maybe. But when a vast majority of the population doesn't follow politics closely, these minor details can make all the difference. I would venture to bet everything I have that there is at least one person who plans on voting next month for "Tom Kean," the governor, not his son, "Tom Kean Jr.", the State Senator.
Action: Contact CBS-2 and let them know that they should take care to actually report on real "smears," not create them. As always, be civil and respectful. But let your voice be heard.
On the Web: The CBS-2 segment
The 'Confrontation' Video
Comments