As I have written many times, what appears to be media bias can instead actually be an institutional laziness on the part of reporters or even groups of reporters. In these cases, there is little effort made to explain an issue or event and put it in context so that the reader is left with an entirely different impression of a story than one would ordinarily perceive.

This is especially true of stories that involve nuanced, multi-layered statements from politicians and diplomats. We may have joked about John Kerry being “nuancy boy” from time to time in reference to the Massachusetts Senator’s penchant for long winded and rambling answers to questions. But in truth, Kerry’s problem with the English language was nothing compared to the problem of reporters trying to crystallize his answers and boil them down into a few. well chosen paragraphs. Of course, Kerry’s “nuances” involved issues that most Americans saw as pretty straightforward, black and white matters like who we are fighting in the War on Terror and why. But on other issues like our relations with Russia where the Senator actually had a position that was well thought out, the press in general failed to report the subtleties in the Senator’s position, reducing the complexities of the issue to mindless generalities.

We have also seen this deficiency when wondering if reporters know anything about the internet and have ever heard of Google. How many stories has the blogosphere – right and left – totally debunked simply by using a search engine?

I bring this up today because of the horrible job done by reporters who wrote about the statement yesterday by the US State Department regarding the Danish cartoons. The official statement on the matter came from spokesman Sean McCormick at the daily press briefing. Here, the Department issues a ringing defense of freedom of the press:

Our response is to say that while we certainly don’t agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy—democracies around the world—and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us.

We believe, for example in our country, that people from different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, national backgrounds add to our strength as a country. And it is important to recognize and appreciate those differences. And it is also important to protect the rights of individuals and the media to express a point of view concerning various subjects. So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may—like I said, we may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view.

For example—and on the particular cartoon that was published—I know the Prime Minister of Denmark has talked about his, I know that the newspaper that originally printed it has apologized, so they have addressed this particular issue. So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialog, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images.

I see no backing down on the issue of press freedom whatsoever. And as Hugh Hewitt points out in one of the more thoughtful takes on this controversy, whether we like it or not, the cartoons were offensive to Muslims:

The cartoons were in bad taste, an unnecessary affront to many of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, just as Joel Stein affronted the military, the families and friends of the military, and as Toles did the same to the wounded, and their families, friends and admirers. Of course each of them had the absolute right to publish their screed, and the Danish (and now Norwegian) governments must reply to demands that these papers be punished with a steely refusal to be dictated to as to their culture of free expression and the protection of the vulgar and the stupid.

But don’t cheer the vulgar and the stupid.

So just where did the State Department get it wrong? They stand up for free speech. They recognize that the cartoons offended Muslims. They tell the idiots in the Middle East to look to their own portrayals of Jews and Christians before going off half cocked about the Mohamed cartoons. And they call upon everyone to settle down.

But all we got from press reports was the fact that the State Department seems to be condemning the Danes and other European publications for running the offending cartoons and an obligatory nod to the First Amendment. This is from Reuters:

“These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims,” State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. “We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.”

Note that according to Reuters, the statement is given by Kurtis Cooper. Cooper is listed as a “Press Officer for AF, DRL, HIV/AIDS, S/WCI, T. Did the Reuters reporter just corral someone in the hall outside the briefing room? What would a press officer whose job was to liaise on HIV be doing talking about the cartoon imbroglio? And what was the problem with the official US statement on the matter? And what else did Mr. Cooper say that the Reuters reporter isn’t telling us?

This is almost the exact same blurb via AP but from Janelle Hironimus:

While recognizing the importance of freedom of the press and expression, U.S. State Department press officer Janelle Hironimus said these rights must be coupled with press responsibility.

“Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable,” Hironimus said. “We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices.”

I don’t doubt that Ms. Hironimus is a very nice lady but she isn’t even on the State Department’s Bureau of Public Affairs personnel listings for the press office. Again, what was the problem with the official US Statement which was pretty inclusive of the issues that needed to be addressed?

Finally, one more statement from another State Department “spokesman.” This time it’s Justin Higgins doing the honors:

“These cartoons are indeed offensive to the beliefs of Muslims,” State Department spokesman Justin Higgins said when queried about the furore sparked by the cartoons which first appeared in a Danish newspaper.

“We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility,” Higgins told AFP.

“Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable. We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices.”

Mr. Higgins is also apparently another low level press liaison as he isn’t listed on the organizational chart either.

This is not to say that these press officers are contradicting Mr. McCormick when he gave the official US statement on the controversy. But instead of the nuances and subtleties contained in the official US statement, the reporters have each latched on to what they consider to be the most “newsworthy” part of the statement at the expense of what the State Department was actually trying to say. Is this bias or laziness? From my point of view, it’s just lazy reporting not to even try to put into context that paragraph as it relates to the rest of the US statement.

It is not entirely the fault of reporters. I recently looked at some of the historic newspapers I have in my possession including the Kennedy Assassination, the moon landing, and Nixon’s resignation. It was an eye opening experience. The meatiness of those 30 and 40 year old publications is in stark contrast to the fluff we get today from the “dead tree” press.

The difference is even more striking in the news magazines Time and Newsweek. Where today those publications rarely have a story longer than 3000 words, the depth of coverage contained in those old issues is remarkable, with stories sometimes running more than 7,000 words (7 -8 pages).

But this only accounts for part of the problem. Because at bottom, today’s journalists are just plain bad writers.

I get carried away on this site at times and ramble on about this or that. But that’s the difference between journalism and writing for a blog. Reporters and editors seem to have lost the ability to write succinct articles that give the facts in a clear and concise manner. This is the problem when practicing so called “advocacy” journalism. In order to be an advocate, you have to use too many adverbs and adjectives – a subjective style of writing. This may make great copy but given that a reporter is given only so many column inches to report on a given story, those extra words add up and something has got to go. And that something is usually facts and/or context.

As newspapers and magazines continue their slide into irrelevancy, will this necessitate a change in the newsroom culture? As more and more inches are given over to advertising, it may be that the age of advocacy journalism is waning and something closer to what journalism used to be all about will re-emerge.

UPDATE

Bird Dog at Maggies Farm has an excellent, reasoned take on the entire controversy:

Our opinion is that people, in the “free world,” have and should have the freedom to mock, criticize, and satirize anyone and anything: Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Indians, atheists, whites, blacks, hispanics, Poles, Norwegians, and every other human category. All are fair game.

We do not particularly enjoy it when such things are done in rude, crude or socially unacceptible ways, but that’s just too bad: hypersensitivity is the problem of the hypersensitive and, as they say in AA, “Feelings aren’t facts.” Besides humor, expressions of anger and hate need to be permitted. When Julian Bond terms all Republicans “Nazis,” some folks just laugh, some are upset, and some are deeply disturbed. But freedom means freedom to be a dumb jerk, and to express hate, however loony or untrue. Thankfully, we have the freedom to talk back and to satirize such malignant idiocy.

Amen.