Tipsy Journalism

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 31, 2006 6:20 AM

Boy, we can be gullible sometimes.

Cook up something, call it a "study" and, like Pavlov's dogs, panting journalists will put it in print and on the air.

Last May, I fulminated a bit about a spring break survey of college women and graduates under 35, which claimed 74 percent said under-35 women use drinking as an excuse for outrageous behavior. Fifty-seven percent of women surveyed agreed that being promiscuous is a way to fit in. Except the poll, put out by the American Medical Association, was a sham. Among other problems, it was an Internet survey of women who had volunteered to answer questions, a far cry from a random sample.

Well, there was another example lately, mentioned in this NYT column, that was exposed by Carl Bialik, the Wall Street Journal's Numbers Guy.

Here's how the "Today" show handled it: "According to a new online survey, one in 10 teenagers have an underage friend who has ordered beer, wine or liquor over the Internet. More than a third think they can easily do it, and nearly half think they won't get caught." A number of other news outlets ran the story.

First of all, every online survey is suspect, since it's limited to those who have computers and happen to find the site in question (and how do we know the participants are really teenagers?). Second, the survey (As "Today" did note) was commissioned by the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America, which has a vested interest in derailing Internet sales that hurt its members.

What's more, the Numbers Guy found that the contractor hired by the wine and spirits folks "gets people to participate in its surveys in part by advertising them online and offering small cash awards -- typically less than $5 for short surveys." So they're paying them off!

"People who agree to participate in online surveys are, by definition, Internet users, something that not all teens are. (Also, people who actually take the time to complete such surveys may be more likely to be active, or heavy, Internet users.) It's safe to say that kids who use the Internet regularly are more likely to shop online than those who don't."

A classic case of media manipulation. That doesn't mean kids aren't buying booze online, any more than the other bogus survey means women aren't going wild on spring break. But I would ban all reporting of Internet surveys. They're useless, and journalists know it.

Tell me if this NYT story gives you a feeling of deja vu:

"With the midterm elections coming into view, President Bush is launching an extended publicity tour to draw attention back to the threat of terrorism, quickly pivoting to more comfortable political territory for him after the focus in recent days on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.

"Starting with an address to veterans on Thursday, Mr. Bush intends to outline what one adviser described as the "consequences of victory and defeat." He will continue making speeches on the subject throughout the month, keying off the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11."

You could have figured out this next part for yourself:

"The White House has made national security, and the war in Iraq, the centerpieces of Mr. Bush's strategy for helping Republicans try to retain control of Congress in this year's election."

Bush, though, says these aren't "political speeches."

Dick Polman provides a reality check for the president's Monday interview in NOLA with Brian Williams:

"The topic was whether Bush had adequately summoned Americans to give of themselves in a spirit of shared national purpose. Williams asked, 'The folks who say you should have asked for some sort of sacrifice from all of us after 9/11 -- do they have a case looking back on it?'

"Bush replied, 'Americans are sacrificing. (pause) I mean, we are, we are, you know, we pay a lot of taxes. The Americans sacrificed when they, you know, when the economy went in the tank. Americans sacrificed when, you know, air travel was disrupted. American taxpayers have paid a lot to help this nation recover. I think Americans have sacrificed.'

"When Williams asked the question, I assumed that Bush would slam-dunk it by simply noting that Americans have already been sacrificing in Iraq (at last check, 2,637 dead soldiers and 19,323 wounded) as part of the global terror war. But he went in a different direction, with a response that will no doubt please his restive tax-averse conservative base, but this is where his claims become questionable.

"Back in World War II (the war that the Bush administration is now equating with the war on terror), Americans sacrificed by weathering gas, coffee and food rationing. They also flocked to national service programs. Most tellingly, they also paid higher taxes -- as have Americans during every major war."

I had the same reaction. Why cite taxes as an example of wartime sacrifice when cutting taxes has been one of your most-touted accomplishments?

Could this mean an end to long airplane lines: "Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff strongly backed a program Wednesday that would ease airport security for passengers who pass voluntary background checks to show they aren't terrorists," says USA Today .

I'm ready to sign up. Now if they'll just come up with a program so pilots don't turn onto the wrong runway before takeoff.

Has the Valerie Plame story ended with a whimper? National Review's Kate O'Beirne thinks so:

"For almost three years, at every minor twist or turn of Plamegate, there were media stakeouts at the offices and homes of the suspected leakers that invariably made the evening news and played in constant loops on cable. So who's on Armitage driveway duty? Richard Armitage isn't being hounded to answer questions about his role in Plamegate because the media wishes he had no role. Such a bummer for all the reporters who are now bored with the whole subject."

In Slate, legal writer Stuart Taylor Jr. does a major takedown of this week's New York Times front-pager on the Duke rape case:

"Imagine you are the world's most powerful newspaper and you have invested your credibility in yet another story line that is falling apart, crumbling as inexorably as Jayson Blair's fabrications and the flawed reporting on Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD. What to do?

"If you're the New York Times and the story is the alleged gang rape of a black woman by three white Duke lacrosse players--a claim shown by mounting evidence to be almost certainly fraudulent--you tone down your rhetoric while doing your utmost to prop up a case that's been almost wholly driven by prosecutorial and police misconduct.

"And by bad journalism. Worse, perhaps, than the other recent Times embarrassments. The Times still seems bent on advancing its race-sex-class ideological agenda, even at the cost of ruining the lives of three young men who it has reason to know are very probably innocent. This at a time when many other true believers in the rape charge, such as feminist law professor Susan Estrich, have at last seen through the prosecution's fog of lies and distortions."

The piece "highlights every superficially incriminating piece of evidence in the case, selectively omits important exculpatory evidence, and reports hotly disputed statements by not-very-credible police officers and the mentally unstable accuser as if they were established facts. With comical credulity, it features as its centerpiece a leaked, transparently contrived, 33-page police sergeant's memo that seeks to paper over some of the most obvious holes in the prosecution's evidence.

"This memo was concocted from memory, nearly four months after the underlying witness interviews, by Durham police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, the lead investigator. Gottlieb says he took no contemporaneous notes, an inexplicable and indefensible police practice."

In fairness, the Times's nut graph says that while critics and the defense say the charges are a "national scandal," an examination of the prosecution's evidence "yields a more ambiguous picture. It shows that while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong's case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury."

It's no secret that liberals are unenthusiastic about Hillary Clinton. Now comes Nora Ephron to predict a new bit of triangulation:

"Will she ever say she was wrong about Iraq? Probably not. But the polls show that America wants out of Iraq, so can Hillary be far behind? The answer is no, my friends. You will find her wherever the wind blows. So sooner or later she is going to call for some sort of plan for a withdrawal . . . over a long period of time . . . that involves troops on the perimeter . . . and help from our former allies . . . blah blah blah.

"She will stand next to two retired generals, for logistical support. She will call once again for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. She will find her way to a Friedmanesque position: she will say that no more American lives should be lost in this unwinnable war. Maybe she will even get lucky -- although lucky is probably not the right word: maybe the war in Iraq will finally morph into something everyone can agree is a civil war, which will give her and all the other pusillanimous members of Congress a way to call for withdrawal without seeming to undercut the poor soldiers whose lives have been ruined by this war.

"So let's pretend she figures it out. Let's pretend she finds a way to the right side on Iraq.

"What are those of us who believe that she will do anything to win, who believe she doesn't really take a position unless it's completely safe, who believe she has taken the concept of triangulation and pushed it to a geometric level never achieved by anyone including her own husband, who can't stand her position on the war, who don't trust her as far as you can spit -- what are we going to do if she ends up in agreement with us?"

Um--declare victory?

More blowback on the John Mark Karr media frenzy (which is still going on, by the way. I just saw Rita Cosby, live from Boulder). Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum , taking note of my criticism, says, sure, the coverage has been embarrassing, but:

"Look. Any news channel that didn't cover JMK 24/7 would have seen its audience defect en masse to a channel that did. Any media star that ignored the story would have seen the public stampede to a competitor who was covering it. Blaming the media is a little disingenuous, no? The fault, dear readers, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves. If we're going to bash the media, let's at least pick a topic where the media itself is more to blame than we are ourselves."

I think he's blaming the victims, myself.

Arianna Huffington is in high dudgeon:

"Channel-surfing Tuesday night's wall-to-wall TV coverage of the decision to drop all charges against John Mark Karr was like walking through the halls of a drug rehab center -- everywhere you looked, you saw addicts unable to break their addiction.

"All in the MSM -- well, all except Nancy Grace -- know how sick they are for continuing to talk and talk and talk and talk about this case.

But they just can't help themselves. They know they shouldn't do another eight ball -- they know, after all, this guy is not the killer -- yet they go on and on and on.

"The sad thing is, they can't even enjoy the cheap buzz of dishing out the titillating trash -- you can see the embarrassment on their faces as they reach for the ersatz-breaking-news bottle. As I wrote about scandal-addicted newshounds during the Robert Blake bacchanal: 'They're like Jack Lemmon and Lee Remick in the last reel of Days of Wine and Roses. They're no longer drinking to get high; they're just hoping to avoid delirium tremens -- which in TV-land translates to "big time ratings slump." You know, just a little pick-me-up to "take the edge off."'

"But the 12-day Karr bender is worse than any of its lampshade-on-the-head predecessors. Worse than OJ, worse than Robert Blake. At least those media circus clowns were connected in some way (wink, wink) to the crimes in question. Karr is nothing but a disturbed wannabe -- the walking, talking embodiment of a non-story (or, perhaps, a minor mention buried deep inside the pages of the Rocky Mountain News). Instead, the media tumbled down the 12 steps and embarked on a frantic binge that saw countless articles and hours of airtime devoted to the minutest details of the life, times, and airplane menu of a pathetic murderer manqué."

Apparently, being actually connected to a crime is no longer a requirement.

And consider this stunning figure, from Editor & Publisher (via Public Eye):

"A Google search for 'John Mark Karr,' who was unknown until this month, came up with 10,800,000 results at the time of the latest twist. 'John Mark Karr' with 'Ramsey' added produced 6.7 million returns."

Well, the macaca story is over. Now the Nation's Max Blumenthal is questioning why George Allen, as Virginia's governor, met with the Council of Conservative Citizens, which promotes the preservation of the white race.

Bill Frist is courting conservative bloggers, and made a favorable impression on Power Line's John Hinderaker (who previously felt that "he lacks the executive persona necessary to be a strong presidential candidate") and Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters.

A burning question: Are taller people smarter ?

Another burning question: Is Jonathan Chait supporting terrorism? The New Republic writer ponders the question:

"There's a popular Middle Eastern restaurant my wife and I patronize just about every time we visit my parents in suburban Detroit. The first time we went there, I recall, my dad raised the worrisome prospect that some portion of the money we spent might be diverted to some unsavory cause. But we quickly banished the thought, because it seemed brutally unfair. The overwhelming majority of Arab Americans are loyal to this country, and you can't use an ethnic stereotype to punish some immigrant small businessman. Plus, the food is really, really delicious. They serve a mind-boggling combination of hummus and grilled lamb, a fattoush salad tastier than any I've sampled elsewhere, pita loaves piping hot from the oven . . . but I digress.

"As it turns out, the restaurant's owner is supporting terrorists, at least according to the Department of Justice, which announced this disconcerting news a couple of months ago. The owner allegedly maintains 'connections at the highest levels' with Hezbollah, according to court documents. On top of that, he has allegedly engaged in tax evasion on a massive scale. So that pretty much violates all my core political convictions right there. The experience of learning that I have been subsidizing militant Islamist guerrillas--via a tax cheat, no less--is a new one for me. It has prompted several emotions: remorse (did my fattoush salad sponsor a rocket attack?), denial (it's possible Hassan Nasrallah used my fattoush money to build a hospital or something, right?), paranoia (can the Bush administration declare me an enemy combatant?), and, finally, self-pity (what am I going to eat the next time I'm in Detroit?)."