Throughout the 2008 campaign and the weeks leading up to (and after) the inauguration, there was much commentary on whether or not Barack Obama was getting a free ride from the news media. Were reporters going too soft on him? Were they providing fawning coverage because he matched their views? Was the storyline of the meteoric rise of this saavy/persuasive state senator just too good to not laud? Seems to me that if the answer to those questions wasn’t at least sometimes yes, we wouldn’t be having the conversation at all.
There is a pack mentality that runs strong in the DC press corps, in my view. Storylines tend to flow in the same direction. The direction of the herd can change, but it doesn’t happen overnight.
Why is any of this important? Accuracy often demands a pause and time for reflection, which a running herd doesn’t allow. Today is a good example. Reading the laudatory coverage of President Obama (on several fronts) reminded me of issues we faced at the White House and how the herd tends to move in the same direction – sometimes at a rapid pace – ie, a stampede.
Most notably on the herd front, you probably heard about Obama’s stem cell executive order today. You probably learned from the news that he was “reversing President Bush’s ban” on embryonic stem cell research. That would be wrong, but that phraseology is rampant in the coverage. Why is it wrong? For starters, President Bush was the first Oval Office occupant to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Repeat, the first to provide federal funding. Did you learn that from the coverage? No, probably not. If you did, I bet you had to look hard for it. President Bush provided the funding to existing lines in order to strive to find the right balance between science and the question of using taxpayer dollars to destroy embryos. Some coverage correctly points out the “limitations” or “restrictions” that President Bush put in place in 2001 (Ben Feller’s initial AP piece when the news first broke on Friday was a good example of accuracy). From a quick Google News search of “stem cell ban,” it appears as if the headline writers don’t get the nuance. Why don’t they get it? Because the herd has been running in the same direction for eight years on this issue. It has regularly been reported as a ban, though it isn’t. It’s hard to correct eight years of misreporting, so the stampede keeps going in the same direction. Additionally, in your reading of the stem cell news today, did you learn that President Bush’s decision to provide funding with certain limits was vindicated by significant advances in alternative stem cell reseach which largely take the moral question off the table? (see Charles Krauthammer’s November 2007 column.) No, probably not.
In other herd news, did you notice that President Obama is removing troops from Iraq? The Washington Post reported today that President Obama will remove troops from Iraq and that the U.S. will restrict itself to “achievable goals before departing.” Any mention by reporter Anthony Shadid that victory itself can be achieved because of the remarkable decision made by President Bush in January of 2007 to surge more troops into Iraq? No, not at all. President Obama’s ability to remove troops in victory is thanks to President Bush and the brave men and women of our military. Rarely is it noted in media that President Obama, had he actually been occupying the Oval Office during the long campaign, would have removed troops regardless of the disasterous consequences that decision would have brought about.
With declining staff and dwindling budgets at major news organization, I’m concerned that the herd mentality will become even more prevalent in Washington. For reporters in DC on tight deadlines and under increasing pressure from editors to produce more stories on a greater number of topics, it becomes all too easy to repeat the pablum of the past with respect to President Bush’s policies while cheerleading a new President who is clearly enjoying the benefits of the stampede.
