News weak

Said the night wind to the little lamb,
"Do you see what I see?
Way up in the sky, little lamb,
Do you see what I see?

Said the little lamb to the shepherd boy,
"Do you hear what I hear?
Ringing through the sky, shepherd boy,
Do you hear what I hear?"

Said the shepherd boy to the mighty king,
"Do you know what I know?
In your palace warm, mighty king,
Do you know what I know?"

Said the king to the people everywhere,
"Listen to what I say!
Pray for peace, people, everywhere,
Listen to what I say!"

The assignment was to look over an issue of “Newsweek” and be prepared to discuss its contents.

Perhaps predictably, only three residents made an appearance and, from my point of view, they were eager to discuss the fluff and not particularly interested in analyzing either the content or quality of the “news” part of Newsweek, such as it is.

The lead news story about the war in Iraq seemed to me to be the “impact” article in this issue. It’s available here.

Not really familiar with Newsweek, I decided to take my time and give the magazine a pretty hard look. As one trained in journalism, I should be qualified to offer a somewhat professional analysis; but I ended up feeling a bit reluctant to try.

One of the first things I noticed was Katherine Graham’s name in the masthead. I respect what she did and stood for and feel loathe to voice my true reaction to a publication with which her name is associated.

But the more I read the piece, the more disgusted I became. This is not journalism, it’s just more of the same “I went there and here’s what I think” garbage that seems to be dominant in 21st century “reporting.”

Putting cute Katie Couric in a trench coat in front of a bombed-out building can’t turn her into anything remotely akin to Edward R. Morrow. Today, so-called news reports are filled with unsupported statements masquerading as facts but which are truly opinion and conjecture.

And so, I will set my better judgment aside and engage in a tirade directed at Newsweek magazine and its ilk.

I won’t go through the entire piece line by line, but I will offer a few examples of stomach-churning prose that masquerade as news or analysis.

For example, the first sentence offers a categorical conclusion: there has been one constant [in Baghdad]: it only gets worse.”

The assertion is repeated twice and summed up: “[Al Quaeda] steadily replenishes its ranks of suicide bombers, and morphs from a largely foreign force into a far more dangerous indigenous one. And so on.”

A strange first paragraph for a story (news or otherwise) titled “Baghdad comes alive” and which seems intent on convincing readers of the exact opposite.

The “reporter” introduces his first source in the second paragraph – an excellent place for solid facts or examples. But this source is “a friend named Fareed who has gone and come back over the years…”

A guy named Fareed would certainly know, would he not? No need to identify him further (his age, occupation, education, connection with anybody who might have given him meaningful information – or even a sense of how long you’ve known him or much of the time he was “gone” as opposed to “come back” over the years). Yes, start making your case by quoting a guy named Fareed.

Then there is this mysterious statement (unsupported by facts or attribution): “There hasn't been a successful suicide car bombing in Baghdad in five weeks, and the few ones in recent months have been small and ineffective.”

If anyone knows what constitutes a “successful suicide car bombing is, I hope they’ll contact me. Is success measured by the loudness of the bomb? If terror is the goal, I would think that just about any time a car blows up in one’s vicinity, they’d be successfully terrorized – I’m pretty sure I would.

And then (finally) the writer offers a clearly attributed quote from a credible source (at least credible to those of us who believe the words of an Admiral should be given weight).

But even this quote ends up as more sound and fury, signifying … well, you know:

"Very sustained trends," the official military spokesman, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, says cautiously. "But it's far too early to call this a statistically significant trend."

Just a few questions come to mind. First: if they were “very” sustained, wouldn’t the trends be significant by definition? Second: How can a reporter tell when an Admiral is speaking “cautiously?” Third, if the trends are “sustained,” doesn’t this sort of rule out it being far too early to make something of them. And fourth: why make a statement at all if there’s nothing significant to report?

Enough! I can’t stand any more. Go to the original and get your fill of drivel, if you like. If you read this account with the same kind of skepticism that a good reporter applies when writing one, you’ll discover that there’s really no story there at all – just wishful thinking and guesswork.

And wishing and guessing are no way to run a war – or whatever it is we have going on in Iraq these days.

Somebody ought to go over there, find out what’s going on and send us a report.

We can put it in a magazine called News, NOT weak.

What did you learn in school today,
dear little boy of mine?

I learned that Washington never told a lie

I learned that soldiers seldom die

I learned that everybody's free

That's what the teacher said to me

And that's what I learned in school today

That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today,
dear little boy of mine?

I learned that war is not so bad

I learned about the great ones we have had

We fought in Germany and in France

And someday I might get my chance

And that's what I learned in school today

That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today,
dear little boy of mine?

I learned that our government must be strong

It's always right and never wrong

Our leaders are the finest men

So we elect them again and again

And that's what I learned in school today

That's what I learned in school
        -- Tom Paxton, 1964