Murtha and the Washington Post

Adam Behar  (adambehar@hotmail.com) writes:

Please help me evaluate the newsworthiness of the effort to discredit [Congressman John] Murtha as covered by the Washington Post. I know newsworthiness is in the eye of the editor, but surely there are criteria that need to met. Howard Kurtz (per below) seems to think that the mere allegation is newsworthy--is that a widely held view?

Howard Kurtz: So when conservatives make charges of this sort, you think we should just ignore it? Should the media never have carried a word about the Swift Boat Veterans trying to torpedo Kerry (which began with some paid TV ads)? In my view, the mere fact of this effort against Murtha was newsworthy, as has been made clear by all the commentary it's sparked, and people can make up their own minds whether the effort is fair or outrageous.

And here is my analysis:

If Murtha were running for president, and we were in the middle of the campaign, then the Post's readers might have an interest in knowing that Murtha's Purple Hearts were being called into question. The notion would be that this issue somehow shed light on Murtha's character, and supposedly Americans like to elect presidents of "high moral character." Presumably this was the rationale that justified the media's considerable coverage of John O'Neil's allegations about Kerry's Purple Heart.

But the current situation is very different. There is no campaign. There is, however, a debate about our policy in Iraq. Absent a campaign, why in the world is a fringe website's allegation, murky as the circumstances are, newsworthy? It might be newsworthy IF Murtha were running for office AND making his service in Vietnam a key part of his campaign, as Kerry did. Did that substantial difference not occur to the Washington Post? Murtha's service in Vietnam is not relevant to the Iraq debate and therefore I do not understand why questionable allegations that do not enlighten the Iraq dialogue are newsworthy. I do not understand why the mere accusations is deemed newsworthy? Does it undermine Murtha's credibility and cast doubt on his position on Iraq? Of course not. His ability to influence Iraq policy has nothing to do with his service in Vietnam; he is credible on the issue for another reason entirely: the Pentagon and Army brass and his peers afford him respect because of his knowledge about military matters. I don't mind someone taking shots at Murtha, for example, if they want to take exception with his Iraq analysis; that would seem to meet journalistic standards for newsworthiness. I'm interested in knowing what standards editors applied, what considerations they weighed. My hunch is they were drawn to the controversy and conflict after seeing what the Swift Boaters did to Kerry, and just like the moguls in Hollywood, the Washington Post newsroom loves a sequel. And if my hunch is right, well then, that is rather sad, isn't it. Please also note that there are other grounds for questioning the editors' judgment in running this story (e.g., transparent motives and dubious credibility of Bailey and Bozell, but I will let others sort that one out.) Please tell me why my understanding of the situation is wrong, and I will be sure to share it with my collegues and friends. I know I have a lot to learn from you, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you for helping me sort through this.

Comments

Jump to bottom of list