In the midst of its Reagan funeral coverage on Saturday, the Star Tribune included an article called "In North Minneapolis, Not Everyone was Riveted to the TV" (which, strangely, is not available anywhere on their Web site). It consisted of interviews of average folks on the street, all condemning in various ways our dearly departed, just buried President.
This article had to appear, I suppose, because it wouldn't be balanced to cover a man's funeral without also covering the motivations of people urinating on his grave afterwards. I guess that's news, and give the Star Tribune credit for working hard to find it. They racially profiled a neighborhood they thought would be hostile to President Reagan and sent out a reporter with the express purpose of digging up negative quotes with ambush style interviews. And what do you know, they found some. Just goes to show initiative pays off when creating the news. Because none of these folks would have said anything if they didn't have a reporter hunting them down and prompting them with questions.
Here's the quality of commentary received:
"He destroyed this country," said Tim Strand, 46, a carpenter who wore a John Kerry button into Milda's Cafe.
"I remember the high interest rates we had in the 1980s, but Reagan had a great sense of humor and I think he was one of the great Presidents," [restaurant owner James] Baker said. "But then again, I thought Nixon was a great president ... until he got impeached."
[Hospice-care nurse] Lisa Gibson said she voted for Reagan twice but understands why others are uncomfortable with the ongoing coverage. "The country's already in mourning over poverty, no jobs and the new recession," Gibson said.
In this random sampling of opinion we have one guy remembering that Reagan destroyed the country, one guy remembering how high the interest rates were under Reagan, and one woman not able to mourn Reagan because of the skyrocketing unemployment rates amid the new recession overtaking the country.
Makes me wonder if the reporter for this story, Paul Levy, limited his interview subjects to people entering an insane asylum or a detox unit. Nice work Levy. I imagine his follow up question to each person had to be "what color is the sky in your world?"
Last week the Elder commented on the Star Tribune's habit of printing letters to the editor from people exhibiting complete idiocy. Factually inaccurate, illogical, embarrassingly inarticulate arguments, all printed in the newspaper, without comment or correction. As the Elder noted:
... I read the letters [to the editor] because I'm continually amazed at the daily displays of poor reasoning and weak logic that the Strib deems worthy of inclusion. I could understand if they chose to print thoughtful letters that reflected the paper's left leaning ideological bent. What I can't understand is how some of these silly and, quite frankly, stupid arguments ever are allowed to see the light of day.
Apparently their policy towards interview subjects is the same as for letters to the editor. Obviously inaccurate factual assertions, paranoid delusions, outright lies, doesn't matter. If the people say it, then it must be printed without critical review. That's news, it gets printed as fact, case closed.
Seems ridiculous to me, but I'm sure they have their reasons. The most plausible one I can think of is that the Star Tribune has adopted Star Trek's Prime Directive as their corporate operating principle. The relevant section, straight from Star Fleet regulations:
As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely.
Sounds eerily similar to how Paul Levy treats his interview subjects in North Minneapolis, doesn't it?
I'll be charitable and allow for the possibility that intrepid reporter Paul Levy doesn't treat his interview subjects like inferior life forms. Maybe he simply doesn't have any more superior knowledge than they do. He heard what these people had to say, dutifully nodded his head, wrote it down, and assumed it was true.
Maybe he thinks the country actually was destroyed under Reagan (and he's been living a bizarre postmortem hallucination of life ever since). He thinks interest rates were a problem under Reagan (and not that the Federal Fund interest rate declined from 16.4 % in 1981 to 7.6% in 1988). He thinks the current economy is not producing any jobs and we're living under a new recession (and not that 947,000 new jobs were created in the US in the past three months and the current unemployment rate is a mere 5.6% (4.1% in Minnesota). And he doesn't know that the most recent quarter showed a 4.4% growth in US GDP, the tenth quarter in a row of US economic expansion).
Even if Levy is operating under the same delusions as his interview subjects, you'd think there would be someone in an editorial capacity who actually knows something about history, keeps up with economic news, maybe reads a paper besides the Star Tribune once in a while. At least someone would be responsible for fact checking? Or at least someone would be responsible for reading articles for internal consistency before publication?
But I can't take those assumptions as fact either. Check out these paragraphs from the Levy article:
"He was a good President who stood up for the people,"said hospice-care nurse Lisa Gibson, 38, while waiting at the bus stop at Glenwood and Morgan Avs.
Gibson said she voted for Reagan twice but understands why others are uncomfortable with the ongoing coverage. "The country's already in mourning over poverty, no jobs, and the new recession," Gibson said.
She claims to be 38 years old and to have voted for Reagan twice. Paul Levy wrote it and the editors printed it. It's in the newspaper, so it has to be true, right?
Wrong! (said John McLaughlin voice). According to my sources (the 26h Amendment to the US Constitution), you have to be 18 years old to vote in this country. And in 1980, during Reagan's first candidacy, Ms. Gibson would have been 14 years old! It would be impossible for her to have voted for Reagan twice.
But there it is, in black-and-white (again, you'll have to dig out your hard copies from Saturday to see it for yourself, as it's been stricken from the Web site).
How does this lazy reporting get into the paper? I again refer to the Elder's comments of last week:
1. Ignorance. They don't know what they don't know
2. Apathy. They simply don't care.
I think both those factors play a part in this tale. But let me add a third possibility. Could it be ... bias!? (said in Dana Carvey Church Lady voice).
In the course of running down the Bush economy with ridiculously dismal claims, Lisa Gibson was also claiming to be an ardent supporter of Ronald Reagan. My god, even the Reagan supporters have turned against this President! He's that bad!
For the editors to take the time to bother to notice that Lisa Gibson also happens to be LYING (I submit to you that she's NEVER voted for Ronald Reagan) would kind of ruin this happy little story for them. The only reason she got in the paper was to allow the Star Tribune to make an editorial point about George Bush from within a news article. In fact, that's the only reason they sent Paul Levy out to the streets of north Minneapolis in the first place.
The editorial decision had already been made, and they can't let something like the facts get in the way of their story.
No comments:
Post a Comment