AP: The Devil is in the Deficit

The Associated Press just rolled out a new model of journalism, something it calls “New Distinctiveness” — as opposed, I guess, to New Camouflage. In a memo to staff, the AP’s senior managing editor declared that “We’re going to be pushing hard on journalism with voice, with context, with more interpretation.” He goes on to promise that “this does not mean that we’re sacrificing any of our deep commitment to unbiased, fair journalism,” though that hasn’t satisfied critics mourning the end of an era. Washington Post blogger Alexandra Petri bemoans the fact that, in the Internet age, there is no shortage of personal opinion. She writes, “Even the AP, last bastion of dry, just-the-facts-ma’am reporting, is getting in on the act now.” Really? What planet does Petri live on? “Just-the-facts” is hardly how I would describe the sort of slanted, point-of-view articles the AP has been churning out lately. In fact, promising readers more interpretation sounds a lot like doubling down on the AP’s worst quality. And it certainly won’t make the organization’s articles any more distinctive. The last thing the world needs is more news filtered through an ideological lens — that’s why we have Fox News and MSNBC.

Yesterday’s article about the Senate’s upcoming vote on a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution is a prime example of the bias that already poisons far too many AP pieces. The article has since been updated to reflect the failure of the two competing amendments, but in the original version, reporter Jim Abrams tells us that “Congress will try again to force itself to mend its profligate spending habits.” This assertion plays right into the Republican narrative of the federal government as a bloated, overspending bureaucracy. “Profligate” implies not only spending money one does not have (which Congress is certainly doing) but spending money foolishly, with “reckless extravagance.” It implies waste. While we can all agree that Congress is racking up debt, it’s a matter of opinion whether that debt is being used for worthy purposes. The GOP has been fantastically successful in turning “deficit” into a dirty word. The truth is, it all depends on what you’re running up deficits to pay for. Jared Bernstein, writing in the journal Democracy, points out “the distinction between borrowing to consume and borrowing to invest. Our deficit comes from both types of spending . . . . But few deficit hawks make the distinction.” Giving tax breaks to the wealthy? That, Bernstein suggests, can be categorized as “profligate.” Investing in infrastructure and research that will pay dividends for years into the future? That’s worth breaking out the MasterCard, especially when the costs of taking on extra debt — i.e. interest rates — are at an all-time low.

The GOP likes to proclaim that the American government doesn’t have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. But it’s one thing for a political party to hold that belief; it’s quite another for an ostensibly neutral news organization to trumpet it as fact in the opening line of an article. Bernstein observes that “One of the most common refrains in today’s debate is that the federal government spends too much. There’s little substance to this claim.” As Joe Biden’s former chief economist, Bernstein is hardly a disinterested party. But the facts support his contention. As a percentage of GDP, spending is indeed higher than the average — by about three percent. Meanwhile, revenues are at an all-time low of 15%. It makes infinitely more sense to me to reduce the deficit not by cutting the very programs most needed in a recession but by nudging revenue back toward its 40-year-average of 18 percent. In a perfect world, this increase in revenue would be driven by economic recovery, but in the absence of such fortune, I would lean toward raising taxes. Allowing the Bush tax cuts — all of them — to expire would go a long way toward pushing the budget into the black. Adding a handful of brackets at the upper end of the income scale would also help, as currently the millionth dollar someone earns is taxed at the same rate as the 400,000th.

Snazzy charts from the CBO

The Congressional Budget Office offers a convenient breakdown on where Congress spends its money every year. Judge for yourself whether these expenditures are “profligate.” But remember that one man’s profligacy is another man’s Social Security payment. What looks like a federal intrusion to Republicans is the only way a single mother in Minneapolis will receive health care. Nearly fifty-six percent of all spending is “mandatory” — mostly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Of the spending that is labeled discretionary, over half goes to defense. Together, these two categories add up to 75 percent of the budget. It’s hard to make a case that the government is on an unrestrained spending binge unless you consider a large part of that 75 percent wasteful. The much-maligned earmarks, the pork, the bridges to nowhere — these all fall under the heading of “nondefense discretionary,” which comprises a measly 18 percent of the total. It’s hard to make the case that spending 18 percent of the budget on anything, even if it is research on nematodes or a peanut museum in Georgia, constitutes profligacy. It’s like blaming $50,000 in credit card debt on a daily mocha from Starbucks. Labeling the other 75 percent (about 7 percent goes toward interest on our debt) of the budget wasteful assumes one of two things: Social Security and Medicare aren’t worth it, or national defense isn’t worth it. Liberals would likely be offended by the former, while Republicans would take exception with the latter. And neither is a neutral position or an objective observation. Neither should have made it into the first line of a news story.

The AP is not Fox News. It is not deliberately carrying water for the GOP; in fact, in many cases, from its obsession with sniffing out malfeasance in the NYPD to its thinly disguised disdain for nuclear power (nuclear plants are “nukes,” a loaded phrase if I ever heard one), it leans to the left. But it is also a fundamentally lazy organization when it comes to enforcing objectivity and good writing. Adopting a “New Distinctiveness” policy that rewards voice and interpretation will only make the situation worse. As I’ve written (or whined about) previously, the AP likes to think of itself as an advocate for the “little guy,” a down-home voice of reason speaking truth to power to the out-of-touch bureaucrats in D.C. By so blithely accusing Congress of profligacy, it further cements the official AP narrative of a broken government that deserves its rock-bottom approval rating. But encouraging disgust with the legislature also plays right into the hands of anti-government Republicans who label President Obama a socialist and who, judging by the enthusiasm of the crowd at the Nov. 9 Republican debate, would rather see a man die on the street than grant the feds an ounce of control over health care.

At its core, the debate about deficit reduction is not really about deficits at all. If Republicans were really concerned with closing the budget gap, they would be open to all options for deficit reduction, including raising taxes. But they’re not. Jonathan Bernstein, who blogs for the Washington Post and is no relation to Jared Bernstein, suggests that, for all the GOP’s talk about fiscal responsibility,

Republicans simply don’t care about deficits . . . . When they say they want to reduce the ‘deficit’ they’re not talking, as everyone else is, about narrowing the difference between federal government receipts and expenditures. Rather, when they say something is exacerbating the deficit, it just means they want to do away with it, whether it’s spending on social programs or working class tax cuts.

I have to admit, it’s a pretty good strategy. After all, it’s hard to oppose living within our means. It’s hard to explain that there are more important things than paying down our debt. People genuinely concerned with fiscal responsibility — which includes not only saving money but spending it wisely as well — already have to contend with the conservative sleight of hand, the Republican demonization of the deficit. They shouldn’t have to contend with irresponsible journalism as well.

The AP Does Not ♥ D.C.

Congress’ approval rating is at an all-time low of 9 percent, and if the Associated Press gets its way, that number will be dropping even further. The AP wags its finger today at the disagreement over extending jobless benefits and the Social Security payroll tax cut. Two proposals, one put together by the GOP and the other by Democrats, have since been voted down in the Senate, but the original headline announced that “Congress bickers its way toward year-end compromise.”

The AP has long been characterized by its folksy tone (“Count your blessings this Thanksgiving. It’s good for you.”) and tabloid leanings (missing children, small-town murders and the Michael Jackson trial regularly make the splash page). It seems the organization pictures its stereotypical reader as a down-home Midwesterner who shakes her head at political shenanigans and says things like, “I just don’t see why those idiots in Washington can’t get along.” In its eagerness not to be perceived as a member of the media elite, the AP offers not objective reporting but value judgments designed to appeal to common-sense fans of Rick Perry’s “Fed Up!” (subtitle: “Our Fight to Save America from Washington”).

Thus, we are given an article by David Espo and Andrew Taylor that frowns at both parties for “seeking political advantage for elections almost a year distant.” It reads more like an opinion piece than a news story, using colorful language like “bickered” and “blustered.” Apparently nobody in Washington simply argues or negotiates anymore; instead, they conduct themselves like warring spouses or gathering hurricanes. The mainstream media is often accused of liberal bias, but the real bias at the AP is one toward the viewpoint of the reporters themselves. Washington gridlock disgusts plenty of people, but better newspapers convey that message by quoting average Americans or interviewing political scientists. By contrast, the AP takes sides, as if striving to place itself firmly in the camp of the Everyman. The words it uses to describe both parties are heavy with negative connotations. Republicans aim to offset the cost of the payroll tax cut by “reducing government bureaucracy.” Who can defend bureaucracy, which is associated with paper pushers and middle managers? “Air traffic controllers” or “FBI agents” are more difficult to cut. Contrast that to the more neutral statement from the Times that the Republican proposal would pay for the extension by “cutting the federal work force by 10 percent.” The AP also writes that Democrats wouldn’t just levy a surtax on high incomes; they’d be responsible for “slapping a 3.25 percent surtax on incomes of $1 million or more.” No one thinks slapping is very nice, even if the slappee is a millionaire.

Comedians and pundits are fond of wondering about the identity of the 9 percent of Americans who still approve of Congress. Are they all members of the Pelosi or Cantor families? Here’s one thing we can say: They probably don’t read newspapers that subscribe to the AP.

Faint Praise for Obama’s Judicial Dawdling

Not to jump all over the Associated Press (see my last post), but I came across an article yesterday that is bizarre enough to warrant mention. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the piece, by Jesse J. Holland, about President Obama’s record of nominating female and minority judges to the federal courts. Indeed, the Times ran a nearly identical article last month, noting that “his administration has placed a higher percentage of ethnic minorities among his nominees into federal judgeships than any other president.” But the title of the Times article — “For Obama, a Record on Diversity but Delays on Judicial Confirmations” — hints at the major issue that the AP overlooks: It does little good to nominate women or minorities when the real problem is getting nominees — any nominees, even stereotypical WASP-y male nominees — confirmed. As I read Holland’s article for the AP, I kept waiting for this important point to be made. Obama’s difficulty in filling judicial vacancies is a caveat to the praise heaped on Obama by the political scientists Holland interviews. More importantly, however, it provides much-needed context to the argument that Obama has made, in the words of one poli-sci professor, “an absolutely remarkable diversity achievement.”

The molasses-like pace at which Obama has nominated federal judges has been an issue since at least 2009, when the Times published an op-ed by Jonathan Bernstein, who deemed the situation a “vacancy crisis.” Republican obstructionism goes a long way in explaining the vacancies, as it takes only one senator to block a nominee whom the GOP finds too liberal, but Bernstein also blames Democrats for not pushing had enough to confirm judges he regards as clearly mainstream. While it is true that the administration was occupied in its first year with filling two seats on the Supreme Court, Obama lags behind both his most recent predecessors in confirming lower-court judges. The AP itself offers statistics: Ninety-eight of Obama’s nominees have been confirmed, compared with 322 during Bush’s presidency and 372 during Clinton’s. At this rate, only 196 of Obama’s judicial picks will have been confirmed by the end of his (hypothetical) two terms. Even that projection may be optimistic, however, because, as Bernstein observed in the Washington Post this August, “it’s far more common for nominations to be held up during the final year of a presidential term.” Linda Greenhouse, a legal blogger for the Times, offers a detailed breakdown of the numbers. She writes:

As of this month [April], President Obama is 33 judicial nominations behind where President George W. Bush was at the comparable point in his presidency, and 41 nominations behind President Bill Clinton.

The stamp that a president leaves on the judiciary is one of his most significant legacies. Presidents pay lip service to the idea of nominating the people “most qualified” for the job, but the truth is that an executive’s nominees reflect his own political philosophy. Conservatives favor originalists like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia who try to divine what Thomas Jefferson would have thought about abortion and gun control. Liberals opt for judges more amenable to reading the Constitution as a so-called living document, who have the “sense of compassion” that Obama cited at his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor as “a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court.” In ruling on the constitutionality of the individual mandate that is a center of Obama’s health care reform, all the district judges who upheld the mandate were appointed by Democrats; all those who struck it down were appointed by Republicans. Though the decisions at the appellate level have not followed this pattern to the letter, judges who cross ideological lines tend to be the exceptions that prove the rule.

Because the makeup of the federal courts is so critical to the direction of the country, I am surprised that the Associated Press neglects to mention how few judges Obama has actually installed. It’s wonderful that Obama “is moving at a historic pace to try to diversify the nation’s federal judiciary,” but unfortunately the pace at which he is filling vacancies is also historic: historically slow. Greenhouse writes that, as of April 20, “92 vacancies . . . now exist on the federal district courts and courts of appeals (up from 54 vacancies when President Obama took office, or from six percent to more than 10 percent of the 857 authorized judgeships).”

A reporter who trumpets Obama’s record of diversity without providing the context needed to understand that record is simply acting as a PR flak for the White House. The administration, Holland writes in his article, that “recently has been touting its efforts to diversify the federal bench during Obama’s tenure.” The White House is blowing its own horn. It doesn’t need the Associated Press to help out.

A Sad Story, Badly Told

What is it about momentous occasions that brings out the Edward Bulwer-Lytton, of “It was a dark and storm night” fame, in reporters? Maybe it’s tacky to grumble that the articles about the 9/11 anniversary are poorly written, but I’m lodging a complaint anyway. The Associated Press offers multiple takes on the anniversary, as if to give its network of newspapers several options: maudlin, saccharine or lugubrious. I find it insulting that the AP thinks this sort of high school essay writing appeals to the average American. It smacks of what conservatives call media elitism, because it presumes that the only way readers will grasp the significance of a situation is to bang them over the head with it. It offends my intelligence in the same way that laugh-track sitcoms that crack stale, misogynist jokes offend my intelligence. Just as Hollywood assumes no one will pay to see a thoughtful movie about real people, but will fork over eight dollars to watch a cariciatured romp-fest, the AP assumes that its readers will choose melodrama over straight news.

There is nothing particularly unusual about the writing style on display in the AP’s 9/11 stories. Far too many of the news service’s articles are almost willfully bad, in that there is no real excuse for the overly colloquial, casual language. It does not come off as rushed or written on deadline, as one might expect from a wire service. I could understand if the sentences were hastily composed or the metaphors slightly mixed, but that isn’t the problem. The reporters choose their words carefully; it’s just that they choose the wrong ones. Still, the AP’s 9/11 reporting is especially bad. The melodramatic tone suggests that the only way to commemorate a tragedy is through weeping and gnashing of teeth. It is a mistake to assume that a slew of colorful adjectives is the only way to telegraph sincerity or grief. Other publications — the Times, to cite my personal favorite — have produced authentic, compelling 9/11 stories that are vastly more moving than the AP’s stylistic glop. There is a place and time for dramatic devices like repetition; that time, as Tom Junod’s “Falling Man” article proves, is after the author has spent six pages proving he can write. In other cases, Junod is a notorious abuser of repetition — see his 2011 profile of Pixar chief John Lasseter — but by the end of the wrenching 7,000-word “Falling Man,” he has earned his sign-off: ” . . . We have known who the Falling Man is all along.” The AP, by contrast, has done nothing to justify these opening lines:

At churches, we prayed. At fire stations, we laid wreaths. At football stadiums, hands and baseball caps over hearts, we lifted our voices in song and familiar chants of “USA!” – our patriotism renewed once more as we allowed ourselves to go back in time, to the planes and the towers and the panic and the despair, to the memories that scar us still.

Not only does the writer begin the first three sentences with “at,” but she subjects us to “the planes and the towers and the panic and the dispair” as well. Pick one, please. I don’t doubt that the reporter was sincere in her desire to convey the indelible nature of the memories, but the result is overdone and exhausting to read. Just two paragraphs later, the rhythmic list-making returns, as we are told of gatherings “on small-town main streets and in courthouse squares, in big-city parks and on statehouse steps.”

Another article begins with a smattering of descriptions that sound just slightly off:

Determined never to forget but perhaps ready to move on, the nation gently handed Sept. 11 over to history Sunday and etched its memory on a new generation. A stark memorial took its place where twin towers once stood, and the names of the lost resounded from children too young to remember terror from a decade ago.

The nation “gently” handed the day over to history? Its memory was “etched . . . on a new generation”? You can etch a memory into someone’s mind, perhaps, but on an entire generation? There’s nothing explicitly wrong with this sentence, but it sits awkwardly on the page, like a chair with one leg an inch too short. Likewise, the image of names “resound[ing]” from children” doesn’t quite work. The whole paragraph is an exercise in overwriting.

The AP article that my local newspaper chose for today’s front page includes the following:

Close your eyes and picture Sept. 11. The memories are cauterized, familiar forever. The second plane banks and slides in, the fireball blooms, the towers peel away as if unzipped from the top . . . . No one knew exactly what was happening, or how vast, or at whose hand. No one knew, for a time, that the instruments of destruction were not prop planes but jumbo jets. At the very first, almost no one knew there were planes at all.

September 11 isn’t an event that requires embellishment or fancy language. What the AP reporters don’t seem to realize is that the story is horrific enough to stand on its own. Joe Biden once accused Rudy Giuliani of composing sentences from “a noun, a verb and 9/11.” In some cases, that simple noun-verb formula may not be such a bad idea.

To be fair, the AP isn’t the only media outlet guilty of melodrama. Even the vaunted Gray Lady ran a column on September 6 by Roger Cohen that contains some pretty purple prose. Describing the post-9/11 era, Cohen writes:

Irresponsibility was allied to conviction, a heinous marriage. Self-delusion is the mother of perdition. Wars killed. Wall Street made killings. “Whatever” became the watchword of maxed-out Americans; and in time things fell apart.

Scan the rest of the column and you’ll encounter “scurrilous imaginings,” “kleptocratic tyrannies” and ” inexorable currents of history.” That’s quite a mouthful. If you’re looking for SAT-prep words, Cohen is your man.

Not all of the 9/11 coverage was poorly written. It’s just a shame that the AP, which provides content to newspapers across the country, didn’t hold itself to higher standards.

 

Reason #328 the AP Disappoints Me

Ooh, goody. I love it when the local paper publishes my snarky letters. Actually, for as much as I complain about the newspaper in my small town, I have to say I still support print journalism. At least the Register-Guard attempts to set standards, whereas the AP is seemingly OK with running biased stories written by reporters determined to find — and then report sensationally on — government malfeasance. Even the NYTimes, in writing stories about the chauvinistic corporate culture at the LA Times, phoned the paper for a response before running the story. At any rate, here’s my letter, as well as a link to the AP article I was whining about. The thing that really gets me is that, on the AP’s website, there is a memo from the editor commending reporter Jeff Donn for speaking to a variety of credible people, not just anti-nuclear activists. Uh . . . yes, well, it’s all in the ratio, Mr. Donn. A few scientists does not balance out myriad activists from organizations like Beyond Nuclear and the Union of Concerned Scientists (a group which I usually agree with, but which is extremely skeptical of nuclear power).

AP shows anti-nuclear bias

I was disappointed to see the June 27 Associated Press story on nuclear plant safety. The Register-Guard is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the wire stories it publishes. Nuclear safety may be an important topic, but the AP story was full of shoddy, biased journalism.

It quotes statements by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko, but apparently neglected to contact anyone at the NRC for a reaction to the AP’s accusations of insufficient evacuation planning and fudging of population statistics. A legitimate story would have included a response from the NRC, even if it was an anodyne reassurance about being committed to the highest safety standards.

The story includes no rebuttal from anyone in the government, instead relying solely on previously published documents, and seemingly cherry-picks statements from officials designed to bolster the reporter’s conclusions.

Despite this lack of comment by anyone supporting nuclear power, the article manages to quote numerous activists from organizations described not as anti-nuclear but as having “pressed for reviews of emergency community planning before relicensing.” The article ascribes motives to government agencies based on assumptions, not facts.

The author writes that “government and industry officials also tended to underestimate projected growth ­­— picking numbers that helped win approval for favored sites.”

While it may be a fact that officials underestimated population growth, the AP has no way of knowing those officials’ motives. It cannot prove, and should not suggest that it can, that the estimates derived from a nefarious desire to massage the numbers.

Emily Keizer

For your further reading enjoyment, I’ll also include the semi-irate e-mail I sent to the AP. Note: I am aware that I have way too much time on my hands. But once I get a bee in my bonnet, I can’t relax until I’ve thoroughly swatted it. Also note: The AP does not write back. There’s not even an automated “thank you for your submission” e-mail — props, once again, to the Register-Guard.

In the most recent article in your “Aging Nukes” series (which, considering that “nukes” often refers to nuclear weapons, seems to be a sensationalist and inaccurate title), Jeff Donn states that “During its Aging Nukes investigation, the AP conducted scores of interviews and analyzed thousands of pages of industry and government records, reports and data.” Why, if the AP possesses so many crucial records and documents, has it not posted at least a portion of those records online? The New York Times regularly makes documents available to readers; indeed, its recent investigation into natural gas wells and hydrofracking was a wonderful example of how the Internet can enable readers to directly examine source documents. Records obtained through FOIA requests should be made public, not kept in the AP vaults and made available only to the organization’s reporters. When I read a story in the Times, I may not always like what it has to say, but because I can look through the original documents, there is little doubt that the Times bases its reporting on facts. By contrast, the AP’s stories on nuclear safety are written to make a specific point — nuclear reactors are unsafe — and seem to have been designed from the outset to condemn government regulators. The AP rarely includes a reaction from the government; most statements from NRC officials are from public speeches made months ago. A reputable journalist would at least have asked the government for a response; even if that response were an anodyne “we’re committed to the highest levels of safety,” a good reporter would have included that statement in the story. But the AP seems to have started this investigation with a foregone conclusion. It wanted to find malfeasance, and so it did. And because the AP has neglected to provide even a portion of the “thousands of pages of industry and government records,” the reader comes away with profound doubts as to the impartiality and truth of Mr. Donn’s reporting. “Aging Nukes” could have been an important and well-written series, but as it stands, the stories are simply another example of crusading, “gotcha” journalism.

Emily Keizer