The Same Old News About Lieberman? Not Exactly.

Paul McLeary of CJR Daily takes some swipes at The New York Times' coverage of the Lieberman/Lamont race, arguing that "[o]ver the past week, we've seen a succession of pieces rehashing essentially the same themes concerning Lieberman's attempts to fend off challenger Ned Lamont, and with each new article, we seem to be offered less and less new news about the race, while being fed the same old facts, figures and anecdotes. " McLeary concludes, "The die was cast back when Lamont first entered the race months ago, and it seems that everything since has just been recycling the same themes. We know the Times isn't -- and shouldn't -- shy away from covering the story, but we'd suggest its editors try to come up with a new angle before they decide to spill yet more ink recycling the same old story yet again."

One small problem: Virtually nothing between McLeary's introduction and conclusion supports his sweeping condemnation of the paper's coverage. Instead, we have what unfortunately appears to have been a hunch turned into a thesis. Ordinarily, before you put pen to paper -- or finger to keyboard, as it were -- you test your hypothesis against the evidence, and if you're wrong, you either write about why you were wrong (if, for some reason, it's noteworthy) or scrap your original idea. For some reason, McLeary charged full speed ahead with claims that are belied by the very evidence he purports to adduce in support of them.

Let's start at the top. McLeary notes that last week Mark Leibovich published a lengthy piece on Lieberman's problems with the Democratic base and bloggers, many of whom take issue with the Senator's unqualified and unswerving support for the Iraq war. McLeary appears to have no quarrels with this article but instead argues that last Sunday "the paper ran a somewhat similar piece by Adam Nagourney" that "parroted some of the main themes of the earlier piece." The words "somewhat" and "some" are crucial here, since Nagourney's piece focused in large part on how and why Lieberman was so slow to respond to his primary challenge from Lamont -- a fact that was noted only in passing in the Leibovich piece. To some extent, however, McLeary is right: Both the Leibovich and Nagourney articles dealt with Lieberman's support for the Iraq war, as well as his attempts to refocus the race on other issues. If this had been the end of it -- if McLeary had noted that these two articles, a week apart, had rehashed some similar themes -- that would've been fine. But it wouldn't have made for a particularly compelling column, which might explain why the rest of McLeary's commentary strains to find any shred of evidence in support of some sort of dereliction of journalistic duty.

For some reason, the Times' editorial in support of Lamont is seen by McLeary as an instance in which the themes of prior articles were repurposed. The fact that this was an editorial, and not a news article, appears not to have fazed him. But of course, editorials aren't usually in the business of reporting news; they're commentaries that draw on and interpret the news. That's what makes them editorials. In this case, the very writing of the editorial -- opposing the reelection of an incumbent Democrat -- was major news.

McLeary goes on: "And if the Leibovich piece, the Nagourney piece and the editorial" -- the editorial! -- "weren't enough to allow loyal Times readers to wrap their heads around the issues ... Anne E. Kornblut penned yet another look at the Lieberman/Lamont contest." This part's worth focusing in on, in order to understand just how much McLeary has mangled Kornblut's article:

Given the headline, "For Rivals in Connecticut, a Dash to Pick Up Votes," one might think that the article would look at the positions of both men running for the Senate seat, but other than a few brief mentions of Lamont's stump speeches, it focuses largely on Lieberman's record and the big-ticket Democratic pols who have been coming to Connecticut to stump for him.

Actually, the article had a pretty narrow focus that was done no justice at all by McLeary's conveniently generic description of it. Kornblut's piece was about how Lieberman and Lamont had "turned their focus almost exclusively to winning minority votes." That's pretty noteworthy. Did McLeary already know this? I didn't, and I bet most Times readers didn't, either. As to those "big-ticket Democratic pols" that McLeary cites, they're Al Sharpton, Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye, California Representative Maxine Waters, and Colorado Senator Ken Salazar -- all minorities. (Kornblut mentions in a single line halfway through the article that senators Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Frank Lautenberg are campaigning on behalf of Lieberman, but their presence is clearly not the focus of the piece.) Kornblut goes on to describe scenes that figured nowhere in either the Leibovich or Nagourney pieces, in which the candidates campaigned at churches and venues predominantly frequented by African-Americans and Latinos. Issues like the Iraq war, health care, and job creation were discussed at these appearances, but, while these aren't traditionally considered minority issues, not every politician sees minority voters as constituencies to be placated by citing affirmative action or civil rights laws. Shockingly, they care about the same issues that the rest of us do.

McLeary starts to wrap things up by noting that "the paper also ran a 'campaign trail' piece on Saturday about the race, and another one on Friday concerning the contest's ad spending, and another one on Thursday, looking at how Jews feel about Lieberman." The "campaign trail" article by Jennifer Medina and Nicholas Confessore reported on a 10-day bus tour Lieberman has commenced, as well as Lamont's focus on Lieberman's involvement in the Terri Schiavo incident, an episode that wasn't mentioned in any of the prior articles but which has figured in the bill of particulars that's been drawn up against Lieberman by progressive activists and bloggers. The Schiavo discussion, as it turns out, couldn't have been pegged to a more newsworthy event given that, as the Times reported, Terri Schiavo's husband was campaigning with Lamont. And this wasn't a fresh angle to McLeary?

The piece on ad spending by Medina was standard fare for a high-profile campaign; the Times often runs such pieces. For those of us who don't live in Connecticut but who are following the race, this is more than just telling people what's on their television screens. Never mind that a former President is involved and that Lamont has harnessed the internet to disseminate campaign ads to what is probably an unprecedented degree.

The article on the Jewish community, again by Medina, discussed how despite Lieberman's religion and strong pro-Israel views, Lamont is "receiving substantial support from Jewish voters, as well as some prominent Jewish Democrats." Medina went on to discuss concerns "that centrist Jewish Democrats will become alienated from the Democratic Party if Mr. Lieberman loses the primary" and that this "could hurt the party's chances of regaining control of Congress in November." Again, a fresh take on the race.

Campaigns are tedious affairs that, in large part, involve the endless repetition of campaign issues and themes. Finding new angles isn't always easy, but the Times -- with the possible exception of the Nagourney piece -- has managed to pull it off pretty well. (The coverage hasn't been flawless, but not for any reasons McLeary touches.) As McLeary himself notes, the Lamont/Lieberman race is being closely watched by politicians and activists across the country, which makes consistent and sharp coverage of the campaign a necessity for the paper.

If I had to guess, I'd say McLeary knows either too much or too little about the race. It's possible, for instance, he knew that the Times was going to throw its editorial weight behind Lamont; that Lieberman and Lamont have turned their attention almost exclusively to garnering minority votes; that Terri Schiavo's husband was so incensed with Lieberman's behavior during his wife's death that he is now campaigning against the Senator; that many moderate Jews have turned to Lamont; and that this shift among Jewish voters could signify a larger problem for the Democratic party. Alternatively, it's possible that McLeary didn't read the articles he was critiquing closely enough to do so responsibly. Hard to say. But for someone as skilled and typically rigorous as McLeary, his latest column, to put it very mildly, was not one of his finest.