The New York Times vs. Ronald Reagan

[Evilmav2]

The New York Times vs. Ronald Reagan
Reading the Washington Post's and the New York Times' coverage of Ronald Reagan's death is a study in contrasts.

by Matthew Continetti
06/06/2004 4:36:00 PM

HERE IS HOW the June 6 Washington Post covered the death of Ronald Wilson Reagan, the fortieth president of the United States and arguably the most significant American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt:

*One banner headline, in bold type, "Ronald Reagan Dies," followed by the subhead, "40th President Reshaped American politics."

*Four front-page stories, including articles on Reagan's life ("Actor, Governor, President, Icon"), death (the aforementioned "40th President Reshaped American politics"), and legacies foreign ("Hastening an End to the Cold War") and domestic ("Sagging GOP Rebuilt in His Image").

*An eight-page pull-out section, titled "Ronald Wilson Reagan: 1911-2004: A Life, A Legacy" and featuring in-depth reporting on everything from Reagan's rise to plans for the president's state funeral to dissections of the spontaneous crowds and memorials that formed outside the Bel Air, California, funeral home where Reagan's body is being prepared for burial.

*Four additional articles in the Post's Style section under the group headline "The Leading Man."

*An appreciation from columnist George F. Will, and a separate, unsigned editorial on Reagan's legacy.

And here is how the June 6 New York Times, the nation's paper of record, a publication that prides itself on its "flood the zone" coverage of important news events, covered the president's death:

*One three-column headline, "Ronald Reagan dies at 93; Fostered Cold-War might and Curbs on Government," followed by a 10,820-word obituary penned by chief obituary writer Marilyn Berger.

That's it.

YOU CAN GIVE THE TIMES CREDIT for an additional story in the Sunday late editions, clocking in at an additional 975 words, on various reactions to the news.

But still. Consider: The picture of Reagan adorning the Times front-page is, to my eye at least, exactly the size of the front-page picture of Smarty Jones, the racehorse that lost the Belmont Stakes on Saturday. A story on Smarty Jones shares the top fold of the Times front-page with Reagan, incidentally, as do stories on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the competition over who will be Senator John Kerry's running mate. (In the Post, Reagan gets the top fold all to himself.)

What's going on here? American media organizations have been preparing for Reagan's death for years. At 93 Reagan was the oldest president ever. Time and Newsweek, which close their publications on Saturday, were both able to put together Reagan cover packages (THE WEEKLY STANDARD closed before Reagan's death on Saturday). Surely the Times had its coverage of Reagan's legacy in the works for some time.

And you get the sense, upon reading Berger's obituary, that it was, for the most part, written some time ago, held in reserve until the inevitable day arrived. It begins innocently enough, the obituary does, providing the "news" element to the story--where, when, and how Reagan died--and including President Bush's reaction to the sad news.

Then comes the tenth paragraph, before the jump to the attractive four-page spread on Reagan. And here the Times gets into the meat and potatoes of the Reagan presidency:

"Late in 1986, halfway through his second term, Mr. Reagan and his administration were plunged into turmoil by an effort to deal too rashly with the same kind of hostage crisis that he had accused President Jimmy Carter of handling too gingerly.

Contrary to official policy, Mr. Reagan's subordinates sold arms to Iran as ransom for hostages in Lebanon and diverted profits from the sales to the rebels fighting the Marxist Sandinistas then governing Nicaragua. A joint Congressional investigating committee reported that the affair had been "characterized by pervasive dishonesty and secrecy" and that Mr. Reagan bore ultimate responsibility for the wrongdoing of a "cabal of zealots."

There's more:

"The deception and disdain for the law invited comparisons to Watergate, undermined Mr. Reagan's credibility and severely weakened his powers of persuasion with Congress. Scrutiny of his appointees increased; Supreme Court nominees were rejected or withdrawn; and more of his aides were accused of ethics violations than in any other administration up until that point.

The Times deems Iran-contra, in other words, the most significant, the most newsworthy, the most important event of Reagan's presidency. Which is arguable, one supposes. But what about the unprecedented concessions in arms reductions that Reagan won from the Soviet Union? Those are mentioned, albeit briefly, in the fourteenth paragraph, after Iran-contra is treated in exquisite detail, and taken up again in this paragraph, the fifteenth:

"It was Mr. Reagan's good fortune that during his time in office the Soviet Union was undergoing profound change, eventually to collapse, setting off a spirited debate over Mr. Reagan's role in ending the Cold War. [Emphasis added.]"

Of course the Times never misses an opportunity to criticize the current president. So here is Berger on Ronald Reagan's widow:

"Nancy Reagan, meanwhile, spurred by her husband's suffering, became an increasingly strong advocate for embryonic stem cell research, putting her at odds with her fellow Republicans in the White House. Many scientists believe that such research could lead to treatments for Alzheimer's and other diseases. But President Bush has limited federal spending on it, because the research involves the destruction of human embryos.

Last month, in making a plea for more research, Mrs. Reagan said: "Ronnie's long journey has finally taken him to a distant place where I can no longer reach him. Because of this, I'm determined to do whatever I can to save other families from this pain."


THE TIMES DOES HAVE some laudatory things to say about Reagan, however. He "managed to escape blame for political disasters for which any other president would have been excoriated." For example, "If the federal deficit almost tripled in his presidency, if 241 marines he sent to Beirut were killed in a terrorist bombing, if he seemed to equate Nazi storm troopers with the victims of the Holocaust, he was always able to rekindle public support." Hence Reagan "became known early on as the Teflon president."

But more often than not the Times gives free rein to experts like James Tobin, "a Nobel Prize-winning economist at Yale University," who says Reagan's principal legacy was "a crippled federal government." Or Thomas Cronin, "the McHugh Professor of American Institutions at Colorado College," who says, "[Reagan] was too late, too little, and too lame when it came to human rights abuses at home and abroad . . . He was not willing to be a leader." Or Jack Greenberg, "a former lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund," who says Reagan "showed a clear hostility to civil rights aspirations."

A lot like the clear hostility the Times showed, and shows still, to Ronald Reagan.

Matthew Continetti is a reporter at The Weekly Standard.

[u2sarajevo]

Can't wait to hear the liberal spin on this one....

Murphy?

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[dude1394]

I had to even have the NYTimes read TO me. rag.

[Drbio]

I won't let some birdcage times diminish what Reagan did.



God Bless this American Hero

[LRB]

The NY Times isn't fit to use to wipe your @$$ with because it's already full of S^!# [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img]

[sturm und drang]

So are we going to throw Rather and Brokaw under the bus, too?


DAN & TOM: ENOUGH REAGAN

------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 9, 2004 -- DAN Rather and Tom Brokaw work for dif ferent networks but agree one thing — coverage of Ronald Reagan's death has been excessive, they say.

"Even though everybody is respectful and wants to pay homage to the president, life does go on," Rather told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

"There is other news, like the reality of Iraq," said the "CBS Evening News" anchor. "It got very short shrift this weekend."

Networks have been going almost wall-to-wall with coverage since Reagan passed away Saturday at the age of 93. The former president was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease nearly 10 years ago.

"Once the herd starts moving in one direction, it's very hard to turn it, even slightly," Rather said. "Nationally, the herd has grown tremendously."

"I think just about everything is over-covered these days," said Brokaw, who anchors the "NBC Nightly News." "The spectrum is so crowded. With all the cable networks, it begins to have a 'video wall' feeling to it."

Jennings said he had mixed feelings about the Reagan coverage.

"I'm more inclined to spare coverage — come on [the air], do something meaningful, then get away," he said.

"The last time I had to do it was with O.J. Simpson [during the 1994 car chase], and I had nothing to say after a certain period of time."

Coverage of Reagan's death will continue through Friday's funeral on all the news networks (broadcast and cable).

[Drbio]

I don't have a problem with those two because they are essentially stating that ANY news story is over-covered these days. I think they both want to respectfully report the story, construct a fitting tribute and then move on.

I think just about everything is over-covered these days

I appreciated this comment. The difference between Rather and Brokaw and the NYT is that the first two are reporting news....the NYT has a clear political agenda. I know someone will want to bring up the liberal agenda of Brokaw and Rather, but I think those two are more likely to be open-minded than the NYT as an organization.


who knows.

[Evilmav2]

Whoops... I just posted that Post Article in it's own thread (I didn't see that Sturm posted it here)...

[madape]

"There is other news, like the reality of Iraq," said the "CBS Evening News" anchor.

I agree. I only wish Comrade Rather would report it once in a while.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: madape

I agree. I only wish Comrade Rather would report it once in a while.

I thought the same thing. I wonder why he doesn't wail over the overreporting of Iraq?

Still....I think he and Brokaw were probably just trying to make the point that everything is over-reported these days.

[MavKikiNYC]

So are we going to throw Rather and Brokaw under the bus, too?

Rather, yes.

Brokaw, no, not necessarily, not yet.

My personal view? The coverage is kind of excessive for my taste, and I have to say that I was surprised to see the outpouring of emotional response--grief, admiration, respect-- for Reagan, who, after all, has been largely out of the public eye for the last 10 years.

I have also been surprised at the public appetite for coverage of the story, by the number and demographics of the people interviewed--men and women, old and young, across ethnic lines. Why do people feel so strongly feel the need to pay respects to Reagan, The Man, and by extension, to the office of The President?

But where I diverge from Rather and the NYT, is that I imagine that Dan Rather, as a leftist shit stain, is pretty troubled by the fact that someone for whom he held such manifest contempt should receive such an outpouring of public admiration. Truth be told, he is probably kind of uneasy for the implications that this has as a barometer of the nation's pulse 5 months before presidentail elections.

OF COURSE, Rather and the New York Times would rather look for (and if necessary invent) negative angles from which to cover the war in Iraq; to ridicule and belittle the office of the President as long as it's occupied by Bush; to spin and spew negativity at any Bush administration initiative; to deny Bush's accomplishments, and to over-report anything negative.

OF COURSE they would prefer not to see Reagan's Republican legacy filmed in such soft and flattering light; to see the public making the connection between Reagan's Republican renaissance and Bush's War on Iraq.

OF COURSE it chafes Rather and the NYT that once again Reagan is responsible for rekindling respect for the institution of the Presidency while they do their dead-level best to destroy regard for the President, both at home and abroad.

The New York Times, its journalistic credibility already shredded into irrparable tatters by unrelated events, would have done better to've just succumbed to the anthrax attack.

And the next time that some psychotic lunatic corners Rather in a vestibule and bitch-slaps him into cowering, whimpering submission, I know who I'll be rooting for.

[sturm und drang]

I think the inescapable Reagan coverage is a bit excessive, myself. Then again, I find most "news" these days to be nothing more than the repetitive beating of a very old horse.

I do think the widespread outpouring around Reagan's death, however, is in some form an answer to a question I posed a few weeks ago: Are our current political leaders lacking in humanity, everyman-ness, warmth, humour and communication abilities?

Since Reagan left office, it seems so. G.W. Bush and Kerry alike both seem to lack that je ne sais quoi that draws us to leaders on a personal or emotional level. We support them, but that's the extent of it. With Reagan, however, you felt like you knew him - and liked him. The compassion, the personality, the humour all felt real and honest. Not scripted and ultimately partisan.

To my eyes, that's part of what we're mourning here: the seeming death of the old guard. And the new guard seems vacuous, stilted and superficial in comparison.

[dude1394]

It isn't every day however when the greatest american president in at least a generation passes. Especially one who freed hundreds of millions of people without firing a shot.

Also an absolutely wonderful tribute in washington tonight.

[Drbio]

I watched some of the funeral prosession earlier today. People were clapping with tears in their eyes as the old style military hearse passed by.

A sadly wonderful sight that reflected a significant amount of respect imho.