John Leo: The Not-So-Perfect Storm ("Three green suitcase" journalism.)

U.S. News & World Report ^ | March 22, 2003 | John Leo

[quidnunc]

Call it "three green suitcase" journalism. Let's say a feature writer thinks green luggage is becoming popular. So the reporter taps out a story citing three people in different states who have given up black suitcases and bought green ones. The second paragraph begins: "All across America, people are switching to green suitcases." This creates a media trend that might be real but is probably bogus and certainly isn't established by three sales.

The uproar over President Bush's 9/11 ads was a classic three-green-suitcase story. The New York Daily News broke the story on March 4, with a huge headline "STORM OVER BUSH 9/11 AD." As howling front-page storms go, this one was small. The story quoted three unhappy members of victims' families and one fireman. There were more bylines (four) than outraged family members (three).

The size of the headline letters, 2 inches tall, in a famous big-city daily, established that a major story was underway. With an extra day to rewrite the News, the Washington Post kept the story rolling, although, it could find only two displeased family members and one fireman. So did USA Today. TV and print media blossomed with furor stories, prodded along by a quick press release from the Democratic National Committee that pointed to the storm in that morning's Daily News. By dinnertime, the story was all over TV. The next day, CBS.com was talking about "a flood of anti-ad criticism."

This "flood" consisted mainly of 10 or 12 people quoted over and over. Some people turned up in stories because they were already in reporters' Rolodexes as complainers, unhappy about many different 9/11 issues. This group included a lot of vocal anti-Bush activists, who were not really representative of the victim-families movement but were fairly well known to the media.

-snip-

[CedarDave]

More from the article:

One of the conservative bloggers, John Hawkins at RightWingNews.com, figured out early what was happening. He pointed out that in the big Associated Press story on the alleged furor, "5 out of 6 people interviewed had an ax to grind with George Bush." Monica Gabrielle, who called the ad "despicable," is a Bush-basher who turned up on at least nine news sites. David Potorti, who was also quoted in many stories, said last October, "I feel like the foreign policy of the Bush administration is almost like a second assault on us." Readers and viewers were not told about these anti-Bush sentiments in stories about the ads.

Potorti is a founder of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, identified by reporters as "an advocacy group," "a victims' families group," or "one of the families' organizations." More accurately, Peaceful Tomorrows is the antiwar segment of the victims' families movement, long hostile to Bush policies and affiliated with MoveOn.org, a Web-based organization of the left that wants Bush censured and then defeated. Reporters kept quoting leaders of Peaceful Tomorrows without mentioning their leftward push or their small membership (they claim 120 members, out of a population of victims' family members that surely tops 10,000).

[John Thornton]

This is from US News and World Report---owned by the same guy who owns the NY Daily News. I bet Mort will not be pleased by this one.

[John Thornton]

This is from US News and World Report---owned by the same guy who owns the NY Daily News. I bet Mort will not be pleased by this one.

[prion]

Oooooo! Good article! And out of US News, at that.

Cracks forming in the media stonewall...?

[NYCVirago]

This is from US News and World Report---owned by the same guy who owns the NY Daily News. I bet Mort will not be pleased by this one.

Leo's also a columnist in the Daily News. Ouch!

[Paleo Conservative]

I bet Mort will not be pleased by this one.

Does he still claim to be a Republican?

[McGavin999]

As a result, more and more people are understanding that the media is made up of a bunch of untalented, unprincipled liars.

[jackbill]

I was particularly interested in Leo's last paragraph (and relayed it to the Boston Globe's Ombudsman).

We ought to have some discussion of how these stories were constructed, why reporters didn't go beyond the first wall of savvy and activist family members, and why so many of the small decisions reporters made on deadline seemed to go so heavily in one political direction. It would also be nice to learn why reporters think that three or four people constitute a storm. Once the story line was set, of course, there was a storm. But some of us would like an ombudsman or two to discuss where the storm arose. Was it in the outside world or in the newsroom?

[doug from upland]

I spoke with the Boston Globe ombudsman last week and sent them info about the setup by the RATS.

[doug from upland]

This is excellent. It was a good thing I had about an extra 30 hours last week to get on the phone and shame the people in the newsrooms to fix the story. It shouldn't have been necessary to do that.

[CedarDave]

Thanks much for all your work on this. I was amazed when the New York Post told the behind-the-scences story, and I sent a copy to an editor of a local rag that had swallowed the Peaceful Tomorrows story hook, line and sinker!

[AmishDude]

What's worse is there was no cynicism with this story. None at all. I mean, anybody with half a brain would realize what kind of people these "families" were.

[SuziQ]

More accurately, Peaceful Tomorrows is the antiwar segment of the victims' families movement, long hostile to Bush policies and affiliated with MoveOn.org, a Web-based organization of the left that wants Bush censured and then defeated. Reporters kept quoting leaders of Peaceful Tomorrows without mentioning their leftward push or their small membership (they claim 120 members, out of a population of victims' family members that surely tops 10,000).

They also conveniently failed to mention that "Peaceful Tomorrows" is supported by a foundation that gets a large chunk of it's money from Teresa Heinz Kerry.

[AmishDude]

Do you think the reporters just wanted to believe it so badly they didn't question it? I mean, there's bias, but reporters hate to look bad.

[doug from upland]

I have been told by some reporters that many reporters are just plain lazy. Others, of course, feign objectivity and go with their bias.

[AmishDude]

I guess. But, I was suspicious of the story from the start!

[jackbill]

I spoke with the Boston Globe ombudsman last week and sent them info about the setup by the RATS.

Yes I am aware. Bravo.

I was just trying to let her know that we're still out here.

I strongly suspect that she hopes that this story just goes away.

[NYCVirago]

What's worse is there was no cynicism with this story. None at all. I mean, anybody with half a brain would realize what kind of people these "families" were.

The reporters know what kind of people these families are -- that's why they interviewed them in the first place!