This is a "news" article?

Even though it's on Page One of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, this NYTimes article (free subscription req'd) by Jason Deparle is an exquisite example of opinionated commentary masquerading as news. I ache for access to high school and college journalism classes in which I could dissect this biased writing, sentence by sentence, loaded adjective by loaded adjective.

The article is about The Federalist Society , whose- well, let's use Deparle's terminology: "whose influence is the source of swelling myth, mystery, insinuation, denial and debate", around which there is "intrigue" due to it's "exercising secret influence", "behind the scenes".

The article begins with a Senate hearing quote from a U.S. Assistant Attorney General, Viet D. Dinh, "I am a member of the Federalist Society, and I do not know, quite frankly, what it stands for."
Deparle then sarcastically reports that the transcript for the hearing "does not say how many people...responded to (Dinh's comment) with disbelief". As if it would?! Or even could convey such a thing to us? Does Deparle infer that a Senate hearing transcript should register audience groans, gasps, head-shakes, eye-rollings, and smirks? How juvenile! This is not news reporting!

Deparle labels President Bush's selection of some FS members as Cabinet members, senior aides and federal judges "a new Washington ritual". Ritual? What the hell is an emotive word like that doing in a Page One news article? This isn't supposed to be creative writing! Deparle then conjectures "perhaps to deflect what many conservatives call unfair attacks by liberals, the nominees have repeatedly claimed to know little about the group's beliefs." He tries to see into the minds of the nominees. That's not news reporting. And, the phrase "repeatedly claimed" is one which, the most common usage of, implies insincerity, and is usually in the context of a proven or near-proven falsehood. That's not news reporting.

When he continues: "In the latest version of this routine, White House aides have worked hard to put distance between the society and John Roberts," in what way would he quantify how hard they've worked, the degree of effort they've exerted? That's subjective judgement he's sharing with us, not news reporting. I don't personally consider phone calls, sending emails or letters, issuing press releases, or even giving a press conference to be hard work, especially for those people. That's what they do.
But Deparle wants to paint a picture in your mind; "White House aides have worked hard to put distance between..." I picture four or five very concerned guys in suits trapped in a canoe, frantically trying to paddle away from a raging waterfall ahead, or the swift torrent near a dam that threatens to suck them over the edge...they're paddling to beat hell..paddling to save their lives, trying to put distance between themselves and catastrophe...

Deparle cites three lawyers, members of FS, who helped Paula Jones sue Bill Clinton, but claims they "played..covert roles", and "also worked behind the scenes to disclose Clinton's affair with... Monica Lewinsky". How many of us had any knowledge of who was working on these issues? We rarely know the names of background contributors to legal matters, especially civil suits. And especially before they break into the news.

He cites Bush v. Gore as having "stopped the Florida recount and ensured Bush's election" when referring to, now Solicitor General, Ted Olson, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, and is a member.

At least he labels democrats.com as a "liberal blog", then says they called the FS "the conservative cabal that is attacking America from within."


All in all, Mr. Deparle should try to write in a more straightforward news style, and the editors should not place such obviously biased opinion-writing on Page One in the news section.
And I'll try to consider the source: the New York Times, the same people who gave us Jason Blair.

Brad