 Point. Click. Search. Contents: Archives:
| ||
 by Bob Somerby bobsomerby@hotmail.com E-mail This Page  A companion site. | ||
|
 Caveat lector 2 August 1999 Our current howler (part III): Times too
Synopsis: While regional papers examined the facts, the New York Times played along with Bill Sammon. Did the Secret Service, not the Gore campaign, request the water release? To date, no one knowledgeable has said anything different. In Bill Sammon's two articles in the Washington Times—pieces which created this gimmicked-up story—no one disputed the river commission's statement that the Secret Service requested the action. No one disputed the Gore campaign's statement that it didn't even know about the proposal—that it had actually asked the river commission not to adjust water levels. But if the Gore campaign hadn't made the request, you didn't have much of a scandal. So Bill Sammon got busy spinning, and he kept certain facts out of view. He never told readers that the utility, PG&E, releases water on a daily basis. He never reported what the utility said: that this day's release had been moved up by two hours. He never said the release had produced electricity, and that no water was wasted or lost. And he never told readers that John Kassel, the supposedly "irritated" Vermont official, told the AP that he'd been misquoted (see below). Most important, he never explained the basic question lying at the heart of his story: Why was the release a story at all, if the Gore campaign had nothing to do with it? The point was so troubling that, in his second-day article, Sammon got just a little bit slick. Sammon gave the Gore campaign two paragraphs to say that it hadn't requested the water release. He then spent four paragraphs quoting local residents who didn't seem to know the facts, letting them retell the story in an exciting and misleading new fashion. In their telling, Gore had "allowed" a "waste" of water to occur—although nothing in Sammon's original story supported this view of the facts. It's worth noting that, while Sammon spun, local newspapers were reporting real info. On July 24, the day after Sammon's first story, the Concord Monitor reported information that Sammon's readers have not yet received. The Monitor ran an AP report, which gave a brief overview of Sammon's story, including the quotes from Vermont official Kassel around which Sammon had built his first article. But the AP report then said this: THE CONCORD MONITOR (AP) (paragraph five): Kassel said yesterday the quotes in the Washington Times were inaccurate. The Manchester Union Leader, notoriously conservative, went further in its July 24 coverage. It made clear that PG&E releases water on a daily basis; it quoted Clyde Kepala of PG&E saying "the request to lower the dam was routine;" it quoted Kepala saying that such adjustments have been made for other types of groups; and it reported that Kassel had called the Washington Times quotes inaccurate. In short, local papers in New Hampshire and Vermont were providing information that put the event in greater context, although no one really tried to explain the basic question: Why is this "story" a story at all, if the Gore camp didn't make the request? What a perfect spot for the New York Times, the nation's great paper of record! Why, it was just the time for a major paper to begin to nail down a few facts! A flap now surrounded a leading hopeful, with some evidence that facts were being invented or spun. Surely the Times would bring us some clarity-and help straighten out our invaluable public discourse. But the New York Times had another plan, involving their ace, Melinda Henneberger. On this day, you will remember, the brilliant scribe with the matchless skills had decided to showcase her wit. In a lead story in the paper's "National Report" pages, accompanied by a large picture of Gore on the river, Henneberger spent five paragraphs, and only five, discussing the facts of the story. She devoted the rest of her piece to silly jokes and worthless discussions of how stiff Gore had seemed, going on to describe his past posture in cars, when he would take those long car trips in the 80s. Henneberger's article failed to clarify facts. In fact, it almost seemed she was making some up. Paragraph one: Showing her matchless analytical powers, Henneberger established that Gore's canoe trip had been planned as a slick photo op. But then, when she began to describe what happened next, problems began to surface: HENNEBERGER: (paragraph 2) Instead, his Presidential campaign drew complaints from local environmentalists after the local utility poured millions of gallons of water into the drought-stricken river on Thursday to raise the level artificially and keep Mr. Gore from the embarrassment of running aground. But who were these "local environmentalists" (plural) to whom the scribe was referring? The only such person cited by Sammon, or by the Manchester Union Leader, was the aforementioned Kassel. But, the day before Henneberger's piece appeared, Kassel told the AP that he'd been misquoted, and that he wasn't concerned by the water release. Readers were told about this in two New Hampshire papers—but not in the great New York Times. Henneberger never said who the offended environmentalists were—that plural group to whom she'd referred—and she never told readers that the original troubled environmentalist said he wasn't really troubled at all. Next, Henneberger spent two paragraphs saying the Gore camp denied requesting the release. In her own voice, she explicitly said the decision was made by the river commission. Surely, then, she would go on to explain why her environmentalists were complaining about Gore's campaign—why the environmentalists were aiming complaints at Gore, for something his campaign had not done. That's right. It wouldn't be the great New York Times if the scribe didn't clarify that. Well sorry, folks. This isn't the Times. Here was Melinda Henneberger's "analysis:" HENNEBERGER: (3) A spokesman for the Vice President, Chris Lehane, said the campaign had not asked for the water level to be raised. That decision was made by the Connecticut River Joint Commissions... There was no explanation of why environmentalists would be angry at Gore, and we never learned who the environmentalists were. There was no explanation of why the event was a misadventure for the campaign. Henneberger proceeded to her endless discussion of how stiff Gore seemed in various contexts, leaving behind a puzzling story which she made no attempt to explain or decipher. In New Hampshire, local papers were informing readers about apparent problems with the Gore canoe flap. But in the great national papers, there seemed to be no corresponding concern about simple elements of fact or logic. And, with signals given that the national papers were willing to let another pseudo-flap by, the word went out to the major spinners, and the lying got started in earnest.
Tomorrow: Yep. When the Post and the Times showed that they'd play along, the lying and spinning got serious. Slick like me: How hard did Sammon work to avoid saying "daily?" Here's how he quoted one official, smoothly avoiding the word: SAMMON: Bill Shaheen, husband of the governor [of New Hampshire] and chairman of the Gore 2000 campaign in New Hampshire, downplayed the significance of the water discharge, saying the utility periodically releases water anyway. "Periodically" replaces "daily" in Sammon's effort to maintain his gimmicked-up tale. In two full days of reporting his story, Sammon never told readers the dam releases water every day. As we've mentioned, he did quote a dam employee saying, of the water release, "It's a first for me, and I've been in this job for 16 years." Local papers explained to readers about the daily release of water. Sammon, a sophist spinning a story, decided to deep-six that fact. |