It's the Editorial Judgement, Stupid

If you were the editor, which of these stories would you have put on the front page, above the fold, on Thursday morning's edition of the nation's newspaper, USA Today?

1. Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi comes to the U.S. to address a rare joint session of the U.S House of Representatives and of the U.S. Senate to say to America "Thanks for your sacrifices" in our war to liberate Iraq and that, yes, it was the right thing to do.

2. U.S. Olympic Gold Medalist Paul Hamm is traveling to Switzerland with his band of lawyers to try to defend his disputed gold medal.

The enlightened editors of USA Today chose story #2. They buried the Allawi story inside the paper. Any bias in this choice, I ask you dear reader?

Those of you who are political junkies will remember the famous James Carville quote from the 1992 presidential election: "It's the economy, stupid". Carville, as Bill Clinton's campaign manager wrote the note to himself on a whiteboard to remind himself what to focus on in the election. Not the Gulf War. Not the end of the Cold War. The economy, stupid. That was his focus and it worked.

USA Today's cover of the news section on Wednesday helped me realize that our focus on media scandals like CBS's Memogate, and media coverage of the election in general should be:

It's the Editorial Judgement, Stupid.

Focus is a remarkable thing, and it's worth thinking about in this presidential election cycle - especially in regards to the media's role in the election. What role does the editorial judgement of the mainstream media play in shaping voter thought?

Take the Dan Rather / CBS / 60 minutes scandal for a minute. What is the larger picture that this scandal exposed? Is it Dan Rather's sloppy reporting? Rather's hatred of George Bush? His willingness to use forged documents to get "the story"? CBS's liberal bias? It's all that, of course.

For me, the focus going forward should not be on Dan Rather and his colleagues. Rather should resign. No question about it. Using forged documents in a one-sided hit piece designed to do damage to a sitting president's re-election campaign is unquestionably grounds for immediate termination. The focus for the analysis that this scandal should engender is: editorial judgement.

Editors make judgements. In the news business they make judgements about what is newsworthy. What story, out of the hundreds of possible stories, does the viewer need to see tonight or this week?

Let's take two competing stories available for an editor at 60 Minutes to choose from in the last month or so:

1. The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, whose ads have been the single most influential event of the campaign as they've taken John Kerry down in the polls. The Swifties most devastating claim is that after John Kerry returned from Vietnam, and while still an officer in the U.S. Naval Reserves, visited Paris and conducted private talks (negotiations?) with the head of the Viet Cong about releasing POW's to his organization. When he returned home John Kerry held a press conference urging President Nixon to accept the Viet Cong 7 point peace (surrender?) plan in total. Treason is the correct word for this action.

2. Claims that George Bush missed a flight physical and was suspended from flight status in the Air National Guard 35 years ago and that he was AWOL from duty for a portion of his enlistment. A story contradicted by the official military record showing that Bush accumulated enough service points in each of his 6 years of honorable service. A story backed up by "newly discovered documents" of dubious authenticity from a suspect source. Documents which have now been demostrated to be forgeries.

Did 60 Minutes give airtime to the John Kerry story? No. 60 Minutes has not aired any interviews with the Swifties or investigations of any sort of their claim. But they did rush to air with the bogus Bush story. The editorial judgement in this case offers a clear indictment for bias at CBS and 60 minutes. Liberal, anti-Bush, bias.

Okay, back to USA Today. I was traveling on business on Thursday. I woke up in my hotel room and collected my USA Today hanging on my door, eagerly wanting to read coverage of Allawi's address to Congress. You might say I was disappointed.

Any time someone addresses a joint session of Congress it's important. The House and the Senate don't just get together to hear baseball box scores. They get together for significant historical moments to hear someone speaking about momentous issues. You would think it would make the front page of the paper. Wouldn't you think that?

Let me ask you this: We are in a war. A contentious war with casualties and with many questions. A war where our people are debating the question - was it worth it? The Prime Minister of the country that we went to war to liberate comes to the U.S. to address Congress with a message of "Thank you for your sacrifice" and "Yes, it was the right thing to do". You would think that would be on the front page of the paper. Wouldn't you?

Not the editors of USA Today. They chose to cover a non-news event related to an Olympics that was already over. Wow, that's earthshattering news for the front page, above the fold, of the nation's newspaper. Was there any bias in the editorial decision to stuff the Allawi story inside the paper instead of the cover? You bet there was.

I would say it was a poor choice. A biased choice. But, unfortunately, not a rare choice.

It's the Editorial Judgement, stupid.