RSS Feeds Feeds: Articles | Issues
Articles About TAP Subscribe Donate
TAPPED  |  Beat the Press

Remember Me
Forgot your password?

The symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.


 



The group blog of The American Prospect

ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM.

For those of you who months ago read AP Washington Bureau Chief Ron Fournier's terribly offended screed on how this uppity arrogant black guy named Barack Obama thought he might actually be president and started wondering what Fournier's problem was after that piece basically set the tone for the AP's election coverage, Politico's Michael Calderone might have some answers.

Before Ron Fournier returned to The Associated Press in March 2007, the veteran political reporter had another professional suitor: John McCain’s presidential campaign.

In October 2006, the McCain team approached Fournier about joining the fledgling operation, according to a source with knowledge of the talks. In the months that followed, said a source, Fournier spoke about the job possibility with members of McCain’s inner circle, including political aides Mark Salter, John Weaver and Rick Davis.

Salter covers for Fournier later in the article, stating he "could never tell [Fournier's] politics." Right. Because the GOP doesn't ever consider political sympathies when hiring campaign staff. Gee, I wonder what those email exchanges look like. I suppose the point is--none of this should have mattered. Having political beliefs or sympathies shouldn't affect the way a journalist does their job, and this article wouldn't even have been written if the AP didn't have reporters writing stuff like this.

Some might see this as just another example of why "objectivity" in journalism is a myth, but for some reason, that's an argument I find a great deal more compelling with a network or a newspaper. There's something disconcerting about bias in wire services, since many papers may rely on them entirely for their national affairs or international coverage. There's also something bizarre about Fournier's brand of "accountability journalism," which aims to be opinionated but essentially relies on the credibility of the AP's past, non-opinionated work for any sense of authority, the reputation of wire reporters as "straight-shooters". In other words, the appeal of AP reporters giving their opinions is premised on the myth that wire reporters can't possibly have strong ideological opinions.

Also, Calderone confirms that McCain may have been aware of the internet as early as 2006.

Fournier also met privately with McCain in his Senate office in late 2006, a discussion that Salter maintains was related to that “Internet thing.”

Cool...

--A. Serwer




COMMENTS

Buried in the 50-page report on Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch released today by the House Oversight Committee, is a priceless quote from none other than the new head of the AP's Washington Bureau, Ron Fournier.

Straight from page 21 of the report:

Karl Rove exchanged e-mails about Pat Tillman with Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier, under the subject line "H-E-R-O." In response to Mr. Fournier's e-mail, Mr. Rove asked, "How does our country continue to produce men and women like this," to which Mr. Fournier replied, "The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight

That kind of correspondence ("Keep up the fight") between a reporter and a partisan White House aide during a campaign year lands way outside the boundaries of acceptable newsroom practices.

But Fournier, now the wire service's D.C. bureau chief, shrugged off the embarrassing revelation, conceding only: "I regret the breezy nature of the correspondence."

Of course, Fournier wasn't simply being breezy. "Have a great weekend" -- that's "breezy."

Instead, Fournier was declaring sides. That was the implication of Fournier's note: "Karl, you might think the media are liberal, but you can trust me. And give me access and return my emails. Because I'm on your side."

I remember in the early 1990s, the mainstream press (ie. Time magazine, etc) explicitly started talking about "take" journalism, as opposed to the enshrined "objectivity" standard, and a hard division between reporting and commentary.

I know know human beings have perspectives that they can't really shed, but intellectually acknowledging that and removing the standard are two different things. It seems to me that left leaning people automatically assumed that removing that standard would work to the "objectivity" standard they decided was fake would work to their benefit.

Not true. It works to the benefit of whomever holds the balance of power.

This sort of thing should be objectionable and unprofessional, but "the left" did much to make it sound acceptable. It makes it harder to contest. And now the public, however much it dislikes it, has gotten used to having the press blatantly talk smack.

Post a comment


Search TAPPED for:

Archives

About TAPPED

TAPPED, the Prospect's award-winning group blog, is a link-intensive collection of musings, ramblings, opinions and other assorted writing on the political developments of the day. See a list of our contributors.

| RSS | Twitter


Renew your print subscription or e-subscription.
Get an e-subscription for $14.95.
Give the gift of political insight. Send The American Prospect to a friend.
Change your email address or street address.
YES! I want to receive The American Prospect
— the essential source for progressive ideas.
Explore The American Prospect's award-winning investigative journalism and provocative essays in a free trial issue. Continue receiving The American Prospect at only $19.95 for a one-year subscription - a savings of 60% off the newsstand price!
First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State
ZIP     
Email

Should you decide not to continue receiving the magazine after the initial free issue, simply write "cancel" on the invoice and you will not be billed.

© 2010 by The American Prospect, Inc.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Permissions and Reprints