NYT's David Brooks Shows Politico How to Write Washington Insiders Piece WITH Named Sources
Politico's Mike Allen on Monday told Laura Ingraham the only way to do a piece about what Washington insiders are really thinking is to get anonymous opinions from unnamed sources unwilling to go on the record.
Less than 24 hours later, New York Times columnist David Brooks showed Allen how wrong he is in an article about what Republicans are feeling heading into Tuesday's midterm elections complete with the names of those offering opinions:
We have to be careful not to get carried away, says Lamar Alexander, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate. “I was thinking about putting photos of Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman in the Republican cloakroom to remind us not to overreach,” he told me on Monday.
We have to beware of unrealistic expectations, emphasized Senator Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican. Republicans can’t accomplish big things without Democratic help. They can’t defund Obamacare on their own or pass a new tax law.
Many Americans are still skeptical about us, acknowledged Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House. We can’t do anything that might unsettle them, like shutting down the government. Instead, Republicans need to offer reassurance. Businesses should be able to predict what their tax costs will be, what their health costs will be and what their regulatory burdens will be.
Imagine that. Three positions about this issue - positions that might be unpopular with some conservatives, mind you - but each with a name and a face attached to it.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
Maybe the folks at Politico should give it a try the next time they want to attack one of the leading political figures in the nation.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
D as in d'oh and D as in Democrat
Submitted by CO2Maker on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 8:59am.
Let me see: Brooks writes an "insider" piece in which he quotes by name several Republicans whose opinions might be different from the prevailing consensus of Republican thought? That's called "exposing" them.
On the other hand, MSM reporters quote "unnamed" but "reliable" Democratic sources on positions unpopular with the Democratic leaders? That's called 'protecting" them.
"What Republican said that?" "He did." "Okay, we'll take care of that."
"What Democrat said that?" "Dunno. 'Somebody not authorized to speak on the record.'" "Oh, well...."
If reporters don't provide names who can be fact checked...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 9:01am.
...many of us tend not to believe them, the reporters.
Use of weasel phrases like "sources say"make people wonder if the phrase is an excuse for the reporter to insert his own opinion.
I don't wonder...
Submitted by falcon on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 9:15am.
...I know that's what they do. When I was an executive producer in TV news 20+ years ago, I'd routinely call reporters on the carpet for using phrases like "sources say" without being able to name those sources (at least to me and news management). I knew our reporters had agendas, and none of them was "hidden." But since it was small-market TV, they got away with it, and that's why I got out.
Other weasel phrases: "We're being told...", "Insiders believe...", and the biggest one: "It's not known if..."
That's how they get by with expressing their opinion as opposed to gathering the facts and letting the viewers/readers/listeners make up their own minds, which is how it used to be done.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
Besides the vague "some people," ...
Submitted by CO2Maker on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 12:24pm.
there's another way the news is skewed.
Reporters in print and broadcast often add a transition that has the effect of coloring the viewer's or reader's perception of the facts in the story.
For example, instead of saying, "Last week, 450,000 more individuals applied for unemployment benefits," the reporter might say, "Unfortunately, last week, 450,000 more individuals applied for ..."; or "Despite what the Speaker and Majority Leader said would happen, 450,000 more individuals applied ...."
If reporters don't provide
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 9:18am.
If reporters don't provide names who can be fact-checked....
You left out a comma and a question mark:
If reporters don't provide names, who can be fact-checked?
There you go! ;-)
Thanx
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 9:26am.
Have you noticed in the subject line you can't use the left and right arrows on your keyboard to go back and correct things?
Jim Vandehei
Submitted by Texndoc on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 9:06am.
I saw the co-author on Moaning Joe and it befuddled me anybody would care what this frat-boy has to say about anything, "sourced" or not. His agenda days before the midterm elections couldn't have been clearer.
David Brooks did not actually
Submitted by TE on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 9:20am.
David Brooks did not actually "quote" three Republicans.
Brooks only quoted Lamar Alexander.
As far as what Jon Kyl and Eric Cantor may have said, Brooks only alleged what Kyl and Cantor allegedly said.
I often hear/read leftist political activists of the Washington/New York/American/European/Arab press corps allege "Republicans say ...", and predictably that allegation of "Republicans say ..." couldn't be further from the truth. Said leftist political activists are incapable of understanding what "Republicans say", and consequently their allegations that "Republicans say ..." something is nothing to rely on. The same principle applies to the utterly clueless, Obama worshipping cultist David Brooks.
That is odd, no quotes
Submitted by Bluegill on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:00am.
The GOP is going to have to provide a CHOICE, stand with the people, propose your agenda. DON'T count votes, stand on principle and make each elected official TAKE A STAND.
The idea that we will be blamed for shutting down the government scares every GOP veteran to their core. I say TOO BAD, take a stand and MAKE the other side vote. I think they will fold like a house of cards.
I am really beginning to
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 9:46am.
I am really beginning to think "anonymous opinions from unnamed sources unwilling to go on the record" is actually code-speak for lazy and/or corrupt reporters to fabricate material to put in their stories that they think won't be discovered because they are allowed to "protect their sources" (up to a point).
Look at it this way...just how easy it is for a reporter to write something along the lines of "sources close to <*fill in name here*> reveal he/she/it still wets the bed" and when called upon it won't reveal the source citing their right to protect their sources. With so many liberal MSMers being caught fabricating information, plagiarizing and other ethical behaviors and with the major jump in the number of stories citing "unnamed sources" it is very plausible and possibly highly likely that the "unnamed sources" could just be in the reporter's imagination.
Just my point of view::::
Submitted by williamhenley on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 9:49am.
When we take the house, they had better shut down the government until some of the the yellow dog dems. come across the line to help us run the government the way it is supposed to be ran - Constitutionally!!!
The House SHOULD defund everything except the war effort. Not one penny to any other agency including NO pay for congress.
If they do anything other and attempt to reach across the aisle, we need to shut them down however/whatever it takes.
Politico- the new Newsweek
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 10:09am.
I don't know how long Politico has been a player in the Inside DC Media Scene, but I suspect for some time. Outside of DC, however, I'd guess they've been relatively unknown -until recently. And I think they gained much of their national notoriety by first sending their reporters on FoxNews. Fox has the largest audience, and most folks think their coverage is more fair than MSNBC and even CNN.
I know from a personal standpoint, when I first saw Politico on Greta, I felt they came across as fairly straightforward news reporters.
It was an act, and I was wrong.
Danger
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 10:22am.
If you know that the other guy can't walk away from the deal, you just jack up the price as high as you want. If you negotiate with Obama and he knows that you can't afford to shut down the government, he's just going to jack up his offers to the point of absurdity.
Get ahead of that game! Go to the people before you meet Obama and tell them that the negotiation has to be two-sided. The Democrats didn't pass a budget this year, and if the GOP has to rely on continuing resolutions, so be it. Put the pressure on Obama, instead of unintentionally placing it on yourself.
I mean, you know that he's going to try to screw you, and then blame it on you. Tell the people that before he tries it.
When you play the game scared, you lose
Submitted by lsudolemite on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:12am.
No sports team that seriously wants to win plays the game scared of what the other team might do. You play the game you want to play, you set the tempo and the pace, and you make the other team play on your own terms. Republicans seem to be so whipped from the years of MSM targeting and having no real power, that they have no idea how to exercise it properly when they do. I'm starting to think Limbaugh is right about the GOP being a third party in my lifetime.
Tea party
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:31am.
Plenty of people in the media claimed that the worst thing that could happen is if the tea party tried to go "third party." But the GOP is on notice. If they capitulate and play games, instead of doing the job they were sent to do, the tea party will become the first party, very quickly.