reporting 101
There’s a kind of news story that drives me nuts, and has for decades. It’s hard to describe briefly, but . . . It’s the kind of story that raises for the reader certain extremely obvious questions to which the author of the story seems completely oblivious. Here’s an example, from a Daniel Gross report on Slate about the Davos meetings:
The big news from last night? A well-attended forum on the Middle East, featuring Shimon Peres of Israel and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ended in a storm of controversy. Erdogan left the stage in a fit of pique, arguing that Peres’ impassioned defense of Israel’s Gaza offensive — at one point, he asked Erdogan how Turkey would respond if it were attacked in a similar manner — was “in a manner not in line with … the spirit of Davos.” He was also angered that moderator David Ignatius of the Washington Post had tried to keep him within prescribed time limits, while Peres had spoken at length. Erdogan said he’d never return. Two things: First, Turkey and Israel are supposed to be allies. Second, droning on beyond allotted time frames isn’t rude at Davos. It’s a sign of a Davos Man’s virility. That’s what people do here. They talk — a lot and at length. If people angered by the inadequate speaking time allotted them and the overgenerous speaking time allotted rivals were to start boycotting the World Economic Forum en masse, next year’s edition could safely be held in the Club Hotel’s bar.
Okay, so: did Ignatius cut Erdogan off and allow Peres to talk “a lot and at length”? Gross is so busy snarking about “Davos Man” and making the completely irrelevant observation that “Turkey and Israel are supposed to be allies” that he forgets even to think about this. If Erdogan’s charge against Ignatius is accurate, then maybe he had a good reason for walking out; and if not, then that tells us something about him, doesn’t it? Does Gross think it legitimate for a moderator to assign speakers time to speak according to his own personal preference? Or what?
Come on, Daniel, do some reporting, would ya?
The Times online has a more detailed and entertaining story. Peres was cut off after 12 of his five minutes; Perez then spoke for 25.
— Julana · Jan 30, 08:27 PM · #
THANK you, Julana! Now maybe you should write to Daniel Gross and tell him.
— Alan Jacobs · Jan 30, 08:29 PM · #
(I’m assuming that you meant that Erdogan was cut off. . . .)
— Alan Jacobs · Jan 30, 08:34 PM · #
Gross has made his living the last eight years snarking at Bush. It’ll probably take some time for him to find a new respectable groove.
— JohnMcG · Jan 30, 08:37 PM · #
I think maybe the category of story you’re talking about is where the reporter is so entrenched in the “he said / she said” form of “reporting” that just parrots each side’s talking points, that they don’t notice when one of the sides makes claim that the reporter is in a position to confirm or debunk first hand. Or the slightly less egregious version where a factual claim is made that the reporter could easily and impartially confirm or debunk, but doesn’t bother.
But I think you’re dislike of such articles made you a little quick to call foul here. He says right there in the article:
He was also angered that moderator David Ignatius of the Washington Post had tried to keep him within prescribed time limits, while Peres had spoken at length.
That reads to me as Gross telling us what the moderator did. He didn’t write “Erdogan claimed that the moderator…” which is the usual format when the reporter is being coyly impartial.
— Michael Straight · Jan 30, 09:47 PM · #
Nicholas Kristof was also at the Davos and saw Erdogan stalk off. He gives a few more details his blog.
— Sabina's Hat · Jan 30, 10:38 PM · #
I think maybe the category of story you’re talking about is where the reporter is so entrenched in the “he said / she said” form of “reporting” that just parrots each side’s talking points. . .
Nope. The category I described is the one that bothers me (though I don’t suppose anyone likes the one you mention either). And I don’t see how you can think Gross was being clear in this matter. The facts of the case appear as predicates and subordinate clauses in a sentence whose subject is Erdogan’s anger — and in a paragraph who subject is (largely) that anger. Gross wanted to say witty things about a politician’s emotion while neglecting to give his readers clear information about what actually happened. Which makes it impossible for us to judge the legitimacy or otherwise of Erdogan’s behavior. The WSJ article gets it right.
— Alan Jacobs · Jan 30, 10:38 PM · #
Though I had exactly the same response Alan had, in a little fairness, for a public “incident” like this, the (supposed) anger of the politician generally is the real story. Or, rather, its effects are, as the BBC story seems to latch on to. This seems to me to be a pretty obvious domestic sop by the Turkish PM ahead of the upcoming elections. I can’t help but wonder if that’s exactly what he told Peres on the phone when they later patched things up…
— Ethan C. · Jan 30, 11:49 PM · #
I guess by the prime minister’s standard, Turkey should not respond when PKK terrorists kill Turks.
— BrianF · Jan 31, 12:56 AM · #
Yes, sorry, re Erdogan instead of Peres.
I should have said fascinating instead of entertaining, in the case of relationships so serious.
I think you meant Davos instead of Davis. (I saw Maria Bartiromo conducting a session on CNBC tonight—so much at stake, for so many.)
— Julana · Jan 31, 03:13 AM · #
You say Davos, I say Davis — let’s call the whole thing off.
— Alan Jacobs · Jan 31, 04:32 AM · #
Yep.
— Julana · Feb 4, 01:58 AM · #