Date: 3/22/2018
Hi, Reminder folks. Thanks for showing up on my doorstep every week. You perform an important service.
Another thank you: I have followed the writings of Managing Editor G. Michael Dobbs. He writes a fine opinion piece in the current issue (about Duval Patrick as a possible presidential candidate).
But I am prompted to write by the shamefully biased sections of the lead article by Dobbs in this week’s Reminder, which reports on Elizabeth Warren’s recent Town Meeting in Springfield.
The two first paragraphs of this piece speak only about something that did not happen at the meeting: Warren did not mention she is running for re-election as U.S. Senator. (The rest of the piece meets Dobbs’ usual fair, objective standard – until the final sentence, which again insinuates a negative opinion of Warren.)
Did Dobbs forget that this was supposed to be news, not opinion?
My wife is from Atlanta. She taught me the insidious power of implying an accusation without saying it, by stating the opposite. “I would never accuse you of lying,” a Southerner might say to someone whose word the Southerner doubts. In other words, Southerners know that stating an accusation in the negative will cause listeners to begin to consider the accusation, just as certainly as stating it in the positive.
Even worse, the implied accusation in Dobbs’ article happens in the first two paragraphs – which we expect will be the lead for the story. This sets the expectation that the whole piece will be about Warren’s campaign tactics. By saying what Warren did not do, the lead paragraphs suggest that the entire article will support this accusation. That means that those who read only the first two paragraphs will assume the full article supports that thesis. And those who read the full article will be waiting for the supporting facts – and interpreting everything else in this light.
That is the worst kind of journalism: it makes an accusation not only without substantiation but also without even acknowledging making it. For readers who happen to read this article carefully, it puts in question the integrity of the Reminder as a whole.
I know you (and the Reminder) are better than that, Mr. Dobbs. I believe you owe us an apology, if you are to restore our trust.
Doug Lipman
Longmeadow
Dear Mr. Lipman, to refresh the readers’ memory here are the first three paragraph of the story for which you say I need to apologize: “SPRINGFIELD – It appeared to be almost unnecessary for Sen. Elizabeth Warren to mention she was running for re-election when she came to Springfield on March 9 for one of her Town Hall Meetings.
“Granted the meeting was not a campaign event by definition, but no member of the audience even brought up the fact that Warren would be facing one of three Republican challengers in November. Warren didn’t mention it as well.
“Warren answered a wide range of questions from the capacity audience at the auditorium at Springfield Technical Community College including the ubiquitous inquiry whether or not she was planning a run for the presidency in 2020. She quickly brushed that aside looking for a different question.”
I was reporting what I observed and that simple point is that Warren did not mention her status for re-election, despite that being a very common element for an elected official to include in such a meeting.
News is not just what someone might say, it is also something that is not said.
And that paragraph you mention was the following, “Following the media availability, most of the audience members lined up with their cell phones in hand to pose for a selfie with the senator. It was also obvious that among elected officials Warren is a rock star.”
If you have been to as many of these kind of meetings as I have you notice that while some elected officials are certainly popular, they don’t have lines of people forming for selfies. The selfies were part of the program. The efficient manner in which it was run by the staffers indicated this is a typical part of an appearance by the senator.
She is a celebrity senator with a national constituency. I don’t see that as being a slam but an observation about her popularity, especially after her remarks about Jeff Session as attorney general that resulted in the phrase “Nevertheless she persisted.”
Thanks for your letter. I hope this clarifies your concern.
