August 30, 2007

Larry Craig Reactions: Tell Me What; I Can Figure Out Why

For all I know, every Republican who is now calling for the resignation of Sen. Larry Craig (R-The Airport Men’s Room) is entirely disingenuous. They might only be doing it because they’re a bunch of scared political puppies.

But if that’s the case, I’d like to figure it out for myself. I don’t need the media telling me that’s what they’re doing – because the truth is that they don’t know either.

The coverage of Craig’s foot-tapping performance in Minneapolis has predictably shifted to the media’s “expert” analysis of what everyone is saying about it – and why every word of it is politically calculated.

When Sen. John McCain, Rep. Pete Hoekstra and others call for Craig’s head, the dominant media storyline is that they are running for the tall grass because the GOP is in bad enough political shape as it is.

When Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota calls for Craig to step down, the media helpfully explains that Coleman is doing so because he faces a tough re-election fight next year.

Perhaps these journalists didn’t take the same journalism courses I did – the ones where they tell you to source and attribute everything, and don’t interject your own judgments. This was once known as “reporting the facts” and letting the readers draw their own conclusions.

If McCain calls for Craig to resign, the news is that McCain called for Craig to resign. That’s it. He might have an ulterior motive. It might be that Craig was part of Mitt Romney’s campaign. It might be that McCain’s campaign is going badly and he needs attention. It might be that McCain believes public servants should conduct themselves in an upstanding manner. But I would only be speculating if I told you it’s one, the other or none. So is any other reporter who does the same.

If Coleman calls for Craig to resign, the news is that Coleman called for Craig to resign. That’s it. Whether he thinks it affects his own re-election chances is irrelevant and pure conjecture, unless Coleman says so – which he didn’t.

The Washington press corps sees everything through the prism of politics and political calculation. It is all they know. Every story involving an elected official is ultimately about its effect on the next election. Everything anyone says, does or doesn’t do must be motivated by his or her (or his or her party’s) ability to raise money, get votes, please the base, appeal to moderates, etc.

Surely, this is indeed happening much of the time. But I can figure that out for myself.

Too many facts and details go unreported by Washington journalists who spend their time instead “explaining” things they really don’t understand. Too many stories don’t even make the news because resources are devoted instead to their telling us to whom the president or Sen. This or That was trying to pander with the latest statement they made.

I understand the reporters’ desire to get the so-called “story behind the story” and to tell us not just the what, but the why. The problem is too often they a) don’t know the why; or b) lazily assume the why is whatever conventional political wisdom presumes it must be.

It is possible that a bunch of Republicans just think Larry Craig should quit because it would be the right thing to do. It’s just as possible that they’re all a bunch of cynical clowns who don’t have a non-political bone in their bodies.

The public can figure it out if we are simply given the facts. Of course, that won’t turn any members of the Washington press corps into stars, but it would allow them to serve their profession and their nation far better than they do with idle speculation under the guise of “analysis.”

Stick to reporting sourced, confirmed facts (and not the kind that come from “officials who declined to be named”). Could the Washington press corps really return to this principle?

They should. But they won’t.