GOLDBERGS TEST SCORES! Important new test scores were released. So the Post and the Times started spinning: // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2009
Rage of Brian: The analysts formed an office pool when Keith teased an upcoming treat:
A rare commentand a rare treat! Quickly, the analysts formed an office pool, built around a mordant question: How long would it take Williams to pimp his tie to fire-fighters? The groups excitement only grew as Keith teased the segment again:
The multimillionaires were both outraged! Or were prepared to pretend:
The analysts shoved their money out onto a table, guessing how long it would take.
The key word came at 2:37. As Olbermann said: Of course.
Readers may think were being cynical. But NBC News invented the practice of pimping the wholesome everydayness of its multimillionaire stars. For Russert, it was the Buffalo daysthe days he mused about on Nantucket. For Williams, it has always been that teen-age stint as a volunteer fire-fighter. And his love for NASCAR, of course. And the way he loves shopping at Target. (For a three-part report, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/14/07.)
And yes, this has been a marketing ploy. Of course, as Olbermann said.
Roars went up in our sprawling complex as one analyst raked in his winnings. But another roar had gone up earlier. What follows is part of Brians thinking on this topica topic which provoked a rare comment. Could these big fake over-stuffed suits get dumber if they tried?
Hard to believe.
Lets be clear: This fly-over reflected some very poor judgment; the event never should have occurred. But even dumber was Brians suggestion that the event should have been publicized! It was dumb to stage this event at allbut isnt the reason for the secrecy obvious? Do Williams and Olbermann really think the feds would ever disclose a location at which Air Force One would be taking long, slow overhead passes at very low elevations? Lets expand a bit on Brians characteristically absurd rumination:
Would anyone but an NBC newsman be dumb enough to say what he said?
Brian was outragedand Keith was agreeing. This network has long been the Ship of Fakes. But for our money, last nights Countdown was especially egregious:
How bad did it get last night? To see Olbermann and his guest, Chris Matthews, complaining about the fakeness of pols, just click this. Chris Matthews! Complaining that others are fake! We rubes got run very hard last night. We wondered how many rubes noticed.
Fury of Brian: For Brians original blog post, click here. In the comments, youll meet a few brave souls who recall the various things which havent seemed to outrage Williams down through the years. Of course, the handsome anchor was outraged by Candidates Gores deeply troubling clothesby his disturbing polo shirts, by the number of buttons on his suits. These trivia provoked months of discussions about Gores strange psychiatric state. For a taste of how we got to Iraq, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/15/00, 12/11/01 and 9/11/02. In such places, youll meet a public disgrace. His name is Brian Williams. Last night, he was Keiths special guest.
Of course, exactly, Olbermann said. Our general view? Two of a kind.
GOLDBERGS TEST SCORES: Wow. We thought wed seen bad news reporting before. Then we read this mornings Washington Postand this mornings New York Times.
In each case, a mighty newspaper was reporting important new test scores. How significant are these test scores? In the Times, the story appears above the fold. On page one.
But in each case, before much real reporting occurs, the reporter in question tells the reader what he should think about these new test scores. And alas! In each case, the reporters interpretation borders on the fatuous. And uh-oh! The interpretations crammed into these newspapers opening paragraphs are directly at odds with each other!
Simple story: If you want to like No Child Left Behind, read the Post. If you want to think it stinks, go out and purchase the Times.
In each paper, the news reporting strikes us as quite bad. To start, lets get clear on where these new national test scores come from.
As each reporter is able to say, the test scores come from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (the NAEP), the so-called nations report card. More specifically, these test scores come from the NAEPs Long-Term Trend assessment, one of two major national assessments the NAEP conducts. In its Long-Term Trend assessment, the NAEP tests large samples of the nations 9-year-olds, 13-year-olds and 17-year-olds, in both reading and math. This Long-Term Trend assessment has been conducted since 1971. The new test scores, from 2008, were the first gathered in this program since 2004.
(In its other major national assessment, the NAEP tests the nations fourth-graders, eighth-graders and twelfth-graders. For the NAEPs explanation of these two programs, just click here.)
Because the NAEP is considered the gold standard of educational assessment, these new test scores are important. But alas! At the Post, Maria Glod couldnt even finish one paragraph without telling her readers what they should think about the new scores:
In the very first sentence of her report, Glod tells readers that the new test scores provid[e] fuel to those who want to renew No Child Left Behind. By paragraph five, shes quoting Bush Ed Sec Margaret Spelling, who gushes about the way the new scores prove the success of her work.
If you read this mornings Post, the new test scores seem to enhance the reputation of No Child Left Behind. And this is odd, because in the opening paragraphs of his own news report, the New York Times Sam Dillon seems to say just the opposite. As Dillon begins, he tells readers that the new test scores make No Child Left Behind look like a big flop. And for his first quote, he chooses an expert who says what he wants you to think:
Its like the old joke known as Goldbergs Law: The man with one watch always knows the time. The man with two watches isnt sure.
Lets be clear: Theres nothing automatically wrong with interpreting facts right up front. To some extent, all reporting involves acts of interpretation and judgment. But we groaned when we read Glods reportthen groaned even louder when we read Dillon. In our view, each scribes is straining to offer an interpretation. Each interpretation strikes us as weakand each interpretation intrudes on the need to understand basic information.
Tomorrow, well look at what these test scores show, and well discuss these dueling interpretations. By the way: The Post typically tends to pimp No Child Left Behindand the Times typically tends to denigrate it. There may be reasons for these familiar slantsperhaps even a conflict of interest of two! Well discuss that tomorrow as well.
These new test scores are very importantif you care about low-income kids. They just dont seem to be as important as the desire, at the Post and the Times, to tell readers what they should think about a highly politicized program. But then, low-income kids tend to finish second in these lofty, upper-class precincts. They never really seem to get their own day in the sun.
Something else always seems to come first. Tomorrow, well guess what it is.